As demonstrated in my introduction thread, a lot of people are interested in the abortion debate and my opinions on it, being a "pro-lifer". :)
However, there are so many different directions in which a debate on abortion can go, that I'm also interested in hearing your opinions on the topic before any real debate. So, to be clear, this thread is not so much for debate as it is for people to express their opinions first.
Some of the important questions in the issue include:
- At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
- If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
- Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
- Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
I will follow this with a post of my opinions, and I look forward to all of yours. ;)
Edit: At the least, because this thread is for the sake of gathering opinions, do not question somebody else's without first posting your own.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
- At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
- If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
- Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
- Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
This could be a very good discussion.
Excuse my bluntness, I know they will sound cold and heartless to you.
Q: At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
A: This distiction is beside the point. I consider that it is a life from conception, but still, it has no bearing on my opinion.
Q: If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
A: It is life straight away, unfortunately until it is self sufficient, its life is insignificant if the mother chooses to terminate
Q: Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
A: Her choice to terminate is her choice, not government's. It is insignificant whether the fetus is a burden or not
Q: Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
A: Mother's concern only, although this is tough on the father who may desperately want to keep the child
Here are my opinions on abortion.
Quote
- At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
The conventional answer to this question is that a fetus is considered life at the point of viability, when it could survive outside of its mother. My opinion is, instead, that life begins at conception. To say that life begins at viability suggests that the determining factor in what is life is whether or not it can survive unassisted. However, there are many examples of those that cannot survive unassisted who are still granted "personhood", including the comatose, those on life-support, and certain elderly. We even attempt to resuscitate the dead. For these reasons, I believe that the point of viability is a very arbitrary line of where life begins. My reasoning for conception as the beginning of life may make more sense after the next question, so I will include it there.
Quote
- If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
I believe that the potentiality for a fetus to become a fully developed person gives them the right to life, regardless of whether or not we consider the fetus 'life'. Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong to deprive a person of their future, just the way abortion deprives a fetus of their future. We do not know if the person murdered desires this future or not, yet even if they were suicidal it would be wrong to murder them. To consider something only in its current state is a very one-dimensional way of thinking. I believe that because at the point of conception, the 'fetus' will eventually fully develop unless specific action is taken to prevent this, that is the point at which it becomes life.
Quote
- Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
This question is where my pro-life curiosity began. Up until recently, I had not considered whether or not the fetus was life. For the sake of thought experiment, I accepted that it was, and the question that naturally arose is "how does the burden on the mother outweigh the value of life?" To me, it doesn't. I cannot see how any burden that is non-life threatening justifies depriving somebody of life. If a mother thought that her young children were a burden, would that justify their murder? If I thought that killing a specific population of people would have an overwhelmingly positive effect on the world, would that justify it? Certain people will ALWAYS be a burden, including the mentally ill. If a person is born mentally ill, would it be acceptable to kill them? I do not agree in any of these cases.
Quote
- Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain. Vegans believe that slaughtering animals is wrong and most advocate strongly against it. Slavery was ended by people who were not slaves. There are many, many examples of this. This may be a different case because the fetus is a physical burden on the mother's body, but as of yet I have not seen how this outweighs the right to life.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
- At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
- If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
- Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
- Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
1. The question, when is the fetus considered "life" and is the fetus "alive" are two different questions requiring two different answers. The fetus, from the time it is conceived, is certainly "life", but is no more "alive" than, say, the mother's liver.
When is a pie a pie? When it goes in to or when it comes out of the oven? Or is it some arbitrary point in between?
2. I don't think so. Scientifically speaking, any cell can be considered life. Again, if it's "alive" is another story entirely.
3. There should be no set of "reasons" that allows the mother to terminate besides "do I want to have this baby or not?"
4. Abortion is a public issue because of the potential burden of unfit parents having children (if abortion was outlawed by the state) which are then burdens of the state.
My stance: I have no issue with someone wanting to have an abortion. If they feel that the timing is not right to have a child, so be it. Certainly, the parents should have considered that before being sexually active, especially without birth control. However, I believe sex is a normal part of human behavior, with pregnancy as a typical outcome of heterosexual sex. Those engaging in it should be ready for a pregnancy should it happen. But, and this is a big but, if the parent(s) are not ready to have a child, and that child may bring undue burden on their lives and the life of the child, than abortion should be an option for them without fear of repercussion from the state or the public. I still believe the best option is the morning after pill.
Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:11:49 AM
1. The question, when is the fetus considered "life" and is the fetus "alive" are two different questions requiring two different answers. The fetus, from the time it is conceived, is certainly "life", but is no more "alive" than, say, the mother's liver.
When is a pie a pie? When it goes in to or when it comes out of the oven? Or is it some arbitrary point in between?
2. I don't think so. Scientifically speaking, any cell can be considered life. Again, if it's "alive" is another story entirely.
I do want to address this -- and feel free to continue discussion on it -- but I feel that your answers to these questions are very semantic and don't actually address the point. Life might not even be the correct word, but you can still understand the purpose of the two questions. A liver and a cell, by themselves, develop into nothing. Because a fetus develops over time, people have varying perspectives on when it becomes what I describe as 'life', and the fact that it is developing is often considered important in and of itself.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:19:46 AM
Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:11:49 AM
1. The question, when is the fetus considered "life" and is the fetus "alive" are two different questions requiring two different answers. The fetus, from the time it is conceived, is certainly "life", but is no more "alive" than, say, the mother's liver.
I do want to address this -- and feel free to continue discussion on it -- but I feel that your answers to these questions are very semantic and don't actually address the point. Life might not even be the correct word, but you can still understand the purpose of the two questions. A liver and a cell, by themselves, develop into nothing. Because a fetus develops over time, people have varying perspectives on when it becomes what I describe as 'life', and the fact that it is developing is often considered important in and of itself.
Semantic? Sure. I should revise the bolded point above- I meant the fetus at the time of conception (and for a number of weeks after conception) is merely a bundle of cells, much like any other organ in the body. Until its own organs begin developing (whenever that is) could I reasonably say the fetus is "alive".
I understand the purpose of the two questions. The answers to those questions, in my opinion, are secondary to whether the parent(s) are ready to have a child or not. I believe they should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the fetus's status of life.
Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:27:00 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:19:46 AM
I do want to address this -- and feel free to continue discussion on it -- but I feel that your answers to these questions are very semantic and don't actually address the point. Life might not even be the correct word, but you can still understand the purpose of the two questions. A liver and a cell, by themselves, develop into nothing. Because a fetus develops over time, people have varying perspectives on when it becomes what I describe as 'life', and the fact that it is developing is often considered important in and of itself.
Semantic? Sure. I should revise the bolded point above- I meant the fetus at the time of conception (and for a number of weeks after conception) is merely a bundle of cells, much like any other organ in the body. Until its own organs begin developing (whenever that is) could I reasonably say the fetus is "alive".
I understand the purpose of the two questions. The answers to those questions, in my opinion, are secondary to whether the parent(s) are ready to have a child or not. I believe they should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the fetus's status of life.
At the least, it is still a bad analogy because the fetus will eventually develop into a full human, whereas an organ will not develop into anything else. Is the fetus's current existence the only relevant thing to the question? The abortion does not only end its current existence but also prevents its future existence -- the same reason why we outlaw murder.
At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
From conception.
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Absolutely. What right do we have to deny the mother HER chosen life?
Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
It becomes public domain only when the public are called upon to support the phoetus/baby/child. In contemporary society it is never in the public interest to bring a financially burdensome child into being.
Pro-abortion? You betcha. How about we consider the lives of the existing inhabitants of Earth before burdening us with more.
Does life have inherent value? Nope. Not even mine. But having the ability to conceive of my own mortality trumps the needs of those that have not.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:31:16 AM
Is the fetus's current existence the only relevant thing to the question?
I think there can be no other consideration. Nothing about the child's future is known, including if it will survive birth. More important, to me, is the current state of the parent('s) life and if a child would improve it or not. That is where the abortion issue lies- the choice of the parent(s).
Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:31:16 AM
Is the fetus's current existence the only relevant thing to the question?
I think there can be no other consideration. Nothing about the child's future is known, including if it will survive birth. More important, to me, is the current state of the parent('s) life and if a child would improve it or not. That is where the abortion issue lies- the choice of the parent(s).
The fact that we do not know what is in the child's future can go both ways -- it may not survive birth, or it may go on to cure cancer. You say that the issue lies with the choice of the parents, but I have yet to see a justification for that, in a society where we deny many peoples' choices to do various things.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 10:35:49 AM
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Absolutely. What right do we have to deny the mother HER chosen life?
I'm never going to be able to address everybody's posts, as I'm positive that there will be many opposing me, and I don't plan on starting now -- but I definitely want to address this.
We deny plenty of people their various choices. We deny sociopaths the right to murder, pedophiles the right to molest, rapists the right to rape, etc. This is the very definition of a society, and I think that it is a total cop-out to always return to "it's the mother's choice".
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 10:35:49 AMDoes life have inherent value? Nope. Not even mine. But having the ability to conceive of my own mortality trumps the needs of those that have not.
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 10:35:49 AMDoes life have inherent value? Nope. Not even mine. But having the ability to conceive of my own mortality trumps the needs of those that have not.
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.
YOU may. And I may not. If I care for someone/thing I will fight to prolong their existence (or not if that is their wish). If not, I am indifferent to the same. You are at liberty to protect the things that you love and I will respect your choice. But I will contest you if by any of your actions MY journey is impeded.
Are you making other peoples lives better or worse by inflicting your prejudices on them?
If it does not affect you then leave it be.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:53:41 AM
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.
YOU may. And I may not. If I care for someone/thing I will fight to prolong their existence (or not if that is their wish). If not, I am indifferent to the same. You are at liberty to protect the things that you love and I will respect your choice. But I will contest you if by any of your actions MY journey is impeded.
Are you making other peoples lives better or worse by inflicting your prejudices on them?
If it does not affect you then leave it be.
I honestly can't say that I understand what you're trying to say in that first block.
However, my beliefs here have nothing to do with prejudice, I don't see how the word applies at all. Are we making a murderer's life worse when we send him to jail? If so, I would be proud to do so. I've already pointed out that we do not let people do just whatever they want, and I won't discuss this further.
Also, there is nothing wrong with advocating for against something even though it doesn't affect you, as long as you have valid reasoning. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie refused to get married until gay marriage is legal, even though neither is gay -- something that I've always admired.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 12:13:12 PM
Are you making other peoples lives better or worse by inflicting your prejudices on them?
If it does not affect you then leave it be.
This is my feeling about most issues in general and works perfectly.
Have you considered that the mother is having an abortion because she cant support the child either financially or emotionally, she might not want to adopt as the system is over burdened as it is. She might even want a children at some point but was rapped or some other circumstance where she knows the child is going to be arriving into an unloving environment. There are many many reasons why people may want an abortion and always justified as its not a pleasant experience, and if they thought it would be like going to a trip to the GP they are going to be in for a shock.
My closest friends had an abortion even though it was against everything they believed in as situation required them to change there ideology. They still want a child and are now capable of doing so but having a child during that period of there life would have been a burden parents and society but most of all the child would of had a massive injustice done to it. With children comes responsibility and that responsibility comes prior to a child being born, some time tough decisions have to be made and there is no right answer. By making abortion illegal you are pushing it underground into the place you do not want it to be, there is nothing new about abortion and has been performed throughout history and will always be a demand for it.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
In gestation, it is a symbiotic (parasitic, really) life form. Past the point of viability, that is when it has a reasonably good chance of survival after delivery, it's an independent life form.
QuoteIf the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
That depends entirely on the mother's plans. If she means to terminate, no. If she means to give birth, I'd say the standard social expectations should apply.
QuoteDoes the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Yes. Just the fact that the mother doesn't feel like popping out a kid is reason enough. That, however, depends on location and how far the pregnancy has progressed.
If what you are asking is whether or not that fact
should give any woman that right, then yes.
QuoteIs abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
Location-specific. It comes down to who pays for it - the mother herself or we, the tax payers.
Quote from: wrath- At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
I think it's impossible to set a definition that is not arbitrary or that doesn't reflect a real definition of "life". I do not think that life, in of itself, is something "magical" or inherently "sacred" worth protecting at all other costs. There is a social/emotional/physical context to what we'd consider "living". While you could argue that a tiny cluster of cells which makes up a fertilized egg constitutes "life", I would not argue that that life is worth imposing the physical, emotional, and financial costs of childbirth on a woman who doesn't want anything to do with it.
Quote from: wrath- If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
No. Every flake of skin or strand of hair that falls from your body has the "potential" to become life.
Quote from: wrath- Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
I think that forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want is tantamount to torture, pretty much.
Quote from: wrath- Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
This is something of a loaded question that falls under the "life" definition. If we define a being as being alive in a meaningful sense, of course, it's public domain. We don't allow murder. If it's not defined as life in any meaningful way, then it falls into personal choice.
Haha Wrath, I thought this thread was not for debate!
Anyway:
QuoteAt what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
To my mind, conception is the only "demarcation" that doesn't seem completely arbitrary.
QuoteIf the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
No. Sperm has the potential to be life, but I don't think that we should outlaw the spilling of sperm outside of a vagina a la the Church.
QuoteDoes the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Yes. I get all of the examples that you gave, such as the elderly being a burden on society, but I think that all of your examples are imperfect, as each of them represents a burden of time and money, but not on the person's actual body and organs. A better example would be, if you need a kidney to survive, should I be obligated by law to give you one to save your life?
QuoteIs abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
Between the mother and her doctor.
For all that I have written, I am actually not particularly "pro-abortion." I do think that abortion ends a human life. I don't think that's a good thing. But I also see it as a nuanced and complicated issue; and not one that I want to see decided by politicians to satisfy a political agenda. I believe that if we want to lower the amount of abortions performed in our country, we have to be prepared to put our money where our mouths are and support programs that support women and children; such as universal health care and affordable child care. Hopefully if we can reduce some of the financial burdens that cause women to opt for abortion, more women will feel that they are able to continue their pregnancies. But even then, there will still be some women that opt for abortion because they simply don't want to carry a pregnancy to term, and I accept that. Each woman should have the ultimate agency over what happens to her body.
I agree with Ali, I don't think anyone thinks that abortion is a desirable outcome or a good form of birth control. I doubt even the staunchest supporter is like "yay! I get to have an abortion today!"
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 12:34:29 PM
I honestly can't say that I understand what you're trying to say in that first block.
However, my beliefs here have nothing to do with prejudice, I don't see how the word applies at all. Are we making a murderer's life worse when we send him to jail? If so, I would be proud to do so. I've already pointed out that we do not let people do just whatever they want, and I won't discuss this further.
Also, there is nothing wrong with advocating for against something even though it doesn't affect you, as long as you have valid reasoning. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie refused to get married until gay marriage is legal, even though neither is gay -- something that I've always admired.
I'm trying to illustrate that I consider the value of a life to be subjective. And that I respect your own judgement on the value of a life to the extent that it does not impinge on my own wants and needs.
Prejudice is EXACTLY the right word. Because you presuppose that life has inherent value, your desire to affect my life based on an erroneous assumption is prejudiced. The difference between my prejudice and yours is that mine affects no self-aware person.
With regard to 'Brangelina', the gay-marriage issue evidently DOES affect them; they obviously have an emotional investment in the concept which is why they're making a stand - and good for them.
Quote from: Wrath
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.
Luckily for me, the law in the UK agrees with me on the issue of abortion. Our legal system has decided that the 'inherent value' assertion has its limits when weighed against other more tangible needs and wants. And quite right too. We choose to support the elderly and infirm, and nurse the sick, and prolong life-support because there is an emotional investment in these people. We care for the individuals - be they granny, mum, brother, son, friend, neighbour, swarn enemy - their existence affects us. It is not the life we are saving per-se, it's the sentient that the life sustains. Why do we eventually make a decision to unplug the life-support? Because the empty life is meaningless. When we have lost hope of recovering the person, the body is just a burden.
Quote from: Wrath
We deny plenty of people their various choices. We deny sociopaths the right to murder, pedophiles the right to molest, rapists the right to rape, etc. This is the very definition of a society, and I think that it is a total cop-out to always return to "it's the mother's choice".
These people have earned the ire of society by their insistance on impeding our own journeys through life - we must protect ourselves. The zygote isn't self-aware and didn't assert a desire to be become alive. The baby isn't self-aware and cannot conceptualise life or death and will not feel sadness at its own destruction. If you feel sad about abortion then don't have an abortion. Me? I can live with it.
Yep, pretty much agreeing with everything Siz has said 100%
... so,
has this turned into a debate yet? Can I continue making points, or should we wait for other people to respond with their initial stances?
I think we should be allowed to debate since Wrath already started debating. ;D (I don't blame you Wrath, I find it hard to hold my tongue when someone says something I disagree with too. I just think it's funny that you made the "no debating" rule and then promptly broke it. :P ;D)
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
I'm trying to illustrate that I consider the value of a life to be subjective. And that I respect your own judgement on the value of a life to the extent that it does not impinge on my own wants and needs.
Prejudice is EXACTLY the right word. Because you presuppose that life has inherent value, your desire to affect my life based on an erroneous assumption is prejudiced. The difference between my prejudice and yours is that mine affects no self-aware person.
With regard to 'Brangelina', the gay-marriage issue evidently DOES affect them; they obviously have an emotional investment in the concept which is why they're making a stand - and good for them.
If you view the value of life to be subjective, than you cannot pretend that the value of anybody else's life is less than the value that you place on your own. They should be given their own chance to decide the value of their life, not be forced to accept yours.
And I do not presuppose that life has an inherent value, I believe that it does for various reasons, and I see examples of how society believes it does. That is not prejudice.
Even if I did accept that 'Brangelina' refused to marry for nothing other than that they were emotionally invested in the concept, which I don't -- THAT is an erroneous assumption on your part -- I could feel the same emotional investment towards abortion.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
Luckily for me, the law in the UK agrees with me on the issue of abortion. Our legal system has decided that the 'inherent value' assertion has its limits when weighed against other more tangible needs and wants. And quite right too. We choose to support the elderly and infirm, and nurse the sick, and prolong life-support because there is an emotional investment in these people. We care for the individuals - be they granny, mum, brother, son, friend, neighbour, swarn enemy - their existence affects us. It is not the life we are saving per-se, it's the sentient that the life sustains. Why do we eventually make a decision to unplug the life-support? Because the empty life is meaningless. When we have lost hope of recovering the person, the body is just a burden.
Your 'legal system has decided that the "inherent value" assertion has its limits when weighed against' WHAT? You didn't name anything that weighs against the inherent value of life. I don't see how examples of where we sustain life are good examples of how a fetus is not life. The elderly with dementia and the mentally ill are not necessarily self-aware, you are not sustaining "sentience" by your own definition. And you certainly "have hope" of seeing the fetus develop into a person.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
These people have earned the ire of society by their insistance on impeding our own journeys through life - we must protect ourselves. The zygote isn't self-aware and didn't assert a desire to be become alive. The baby isn't self-aware and cannot conceptualise life or death and will not feel sadness at its own destruction. If you feel sad about abortion then don't have an abortion. Me? I can live with it.
You cannot conceptualize your own death just when you are asleep. Does that mean that it would be acceptable for me to murder you in your sleep? I continue to hold that simply viewing something in its current state is a one-dimensional way of thinking and the fetus has a future that you can deny it.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 10, 2012, 04:38:05 PM
... so,
has this turned into a debate yet? Can I continue making points, or should we wait for other people to respond with their initial stances?
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 04:43:12 PM
I think we should be allowed to debate since Wrath already started debating. ;D (I don't blame you Wrath, I find it hard to hold my tongue when someone says something I disagree with too. I just think it's funny that you made the "no debating" rule and then promptly broke it. :P ;D)
Yes, go ahead ladies... Haha. I do deserve a little preemptive strike, do I not? I am going to be overwhelmed with more posts than I can handle now. Besides, consider it an advantage -- you get to start with all my beliefs on the table.
:D
I'll be out for a while. See yas!
Okay, since we're allowed to start the debate now....
Wrath - some questions to lead you into my way of thinking:
1. Do you feel that not doing what it takes to keep someone alive is the same as murder? For example: if someone is unable to breathe on their own without a ventilator, is taking them off a ventilator "murder"?
2. Do you agree that each person has a right to their own body? To return to the example that I gave before, if you need a kidney to survive, should I be legally obligated to give you the use of mine?
Wrath have you ever collected flowers, squashed a bug, or eaten meat? Each of those is the equivalent to the act of an abortion depending on the cycle of pregnancy, maybe you have never done any of the above and if so this question doesn't stand, but if you have then why is the destruction of those lives alright and abortion isn't? There is a reason why there is a cut of point for an abortion.
At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
I consider a fetus life the moment it can live on its own.
If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
Not really. I mean, a woman goes through her menstral cycle, which unless the egg is fertilized is discarded.
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Yes. Why should the person who has to carry the fetus be forced to keep it term. It is like being given a heavy box and them saying that it is illegal to put the box down.
Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
While I feel like it is ultimately the mother's choice, the father has a right to have a say in what happens to the fetus.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
If you view the value of life to be subjective, than you cannot pretend that the value of anybody else's life is less than the value that you place on your own. They should be given their own chance to decide the value of their life, not be forced to accept yours.
I don't believe
anyones life has value beyond how it affects me or those close to me, or those I rely on to enjoy my life and exist in society. And I dont expect anything less from anyone else in valuing mine. If someones actions are an impedement to me I will try to eliminate it or them from my sphere of experience. I'd stop at anything illegal (for which I'm likely to be caught) because I'm at the mercy of social and legal law. I don't value a foetus' life because it doesn't affect me. I've had an abortion (so to speak). I didn't mourn its death because I didnt love it, like it or want it. I was totally indifferent to it. In fact I saw a scan of it in my partners tummy before the abortion. It really didn't mean anything to me.
I'm not forcing value judgements on anyones life. I am asking that I be left alone with reciprocal respect to live mine.
Quote from: WrathAnd I do not presuppose that life has an inherent value, I believe that it does for various reasons, and I see examples of how society believes it does. That is not prejudice.
Believe, presuppose... what's the practical difference? You are acting on the assumption. That is prejudice. Read a dictionary.
QuoteEven if I did accept that 'Brangelina' refused to marry for nothing other than that they were emotionally invested in the concept, which I don't -- THAT is an erroneous assumption on your part -- I could feel the same emotional investment towards abortion.
My assumption was that you were telling the truth when you said:
"Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie refused to get married until gay marriage is legal, even though neither is gay -- something that I've always admired".
Does that not qualify as emotional investment?
You do feel the same emotional investment toward abortion don't you?
Quote from: Wrath
Your 'legal system has decided that the "inherent value" assertion has its limits when weighed against' WHAT?
The mothers ability to look after her baby, the health of the baby, the prognosis for disease, the percieved quality of life of the baby, the desire of the mother not to have a baby...
Quote from: WrathI don't see how examples of where we sustain life are good examples of how a fetus is not life. The elderly with dementia and the mentally ill are not necessarily self-aware, you are not sustaining "sentience" by your own definition. And you certainly "have hope" of seeing the fetus develop into a person.
I said a foetus IS life. Just not self-aware or of any inherent value. And certainly of no use to me.
I only
hope it develops into a baby if I want a baby. If someone else wants a baby and that doesn't affect me negatively I'm genuinely happy for them. If they lose the baby and they're sad, that's rotten for them, but I really couldn't care less either way. Why should I - I have no emotional investment - or any other kind of investment.
Quote from: Wrath
I continue to hold that simply viewing something in its current state is a one-dimensional way of thinking and the fetus has a future that you can deny it.
One-dimentional? I say pragmatic.
Just for the record, I'm only debating my position with you - there's no malice here... ;D
Quote from: Wrath
I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain. Vegans believe that slaughtering animals is wrong and most advocate strongly against it. Slavery was ended by people who were not slaves. There are many, many examples of this. This may be a different case because the fetus is a physical burden on the mother's body, but as of yet I have not seen how this outweighs the right to life.
Oh, no, he mentioned morals. Someone tie Stevil up and delete the thread before he notices. :D
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:28:50 PM
Quote from: Wrath
I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain. Vegans believe that slaughtering animals is wrong and most advocate strongly against it. Slavery was ended by people who were not slaves. There are many, many examples of this. This may be a different case because the fetus is a physical burden on the mother's body, but as of yet I have not seen how this outweighs the right to life.
Oh, no, he mentioned morals. Someone tie Stevil up and delete the thread before he notices. :D
Hehehehehehehehe :D *Pokes Stevil in the ribs* Look over there, Stevil! What is that? Better go investigate.....
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 05:03:49 PM
Wrath - some questions to lead you into my way of thinking:
1. Do you feel that not doing what it takes to keep someone alive is the same as murder? For example: if someone is unable to breathe on their own without a ventilator, is taking them off a ventilator "murder"?
2. Do you agree that each person has a right to their own body? To return to the example that I gave before, if you need a kidney to survive, should I be legally obligated to give you the use of mine?
1. Taking somebody off of a ventilator isn't an example of not doing what it takes to keep somebody alive, it's an example of doing what it takes to kill somebody. The difference here is inaction versus action -- however, in the case of the fetus it requires inaction to live and action to die. I believe your second example is a better question, so I'll just move on to that.
2. I do not believe that you should be legally obligated to save me with one of your kidneys -- because you are not in any way responsible for me. A fetus comes into existence because of the actions of a man and a woman -- and they are therefore responsible for it. Let me give an example of my own -- Let's say that you and I were born together, attached as Siamese twins, and we were perfectly capable of surviving that way. Then a doctor comes along and says to you "I can remove your twin from you, but it will kill him." Does your right to your body allow you to merely discard mine?
Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 05:14:27 PM
Wrath have you ever collected flowers, squashed a bug, or eaten meat? Each of those is the equivalent to the act of an abortion depending on the cycle of pregnancy, maybe you have never done any of the above and if so this question doesn't stand, but if you have then why is the destruction of those lives alright and abortion isn't? There is a reason why there is a cut of point for an abortion.
I would agree that the destruction of those lives is alright, but they are not equivalent to abortion. A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either -- and while I think that squashing bugs should be avoided where unnecessary, in some cases it entirely cannot be avoided. Eating meat has been seen as necessary to our survival for a long time -- but that may be less and less true today. I believe that some day we will all be either vegans or eating synthetic meat.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on July 10, 2012, 05:33:32 PM
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Yes. Why should the person who has to carry the fetus be forced to keep it term. It is like being given a heavy box and them saying that it is illegal to put the box down.
I disagree. People are aware of the inherent risk that they will get pregnant from having sex, and yet I'm sure that most aborted fetuses are the result of unprotected sex, despite this awareness. I would equate it more to somebody signing a contract accepting the risks of something and then suing when those risks happened to occur.
Your conjoined twin examples doesn't really apply since conjoined twins are both sentient. Or, at least, in your example I assume that they are. If a person had a twin attached to them and it had no consciousness whatsoever, I would see no problem in removing it. If a "person" can't think, feel, or act, why should they be allowed to drain resources from another human?
You also talk about a baby growing as though it's happening in a test-tube. It's not. It's happening in a person. The mother's personhood is not an abstraction about "potentiality", it's real and completely inarguable. She does feel. She does think. She does interact with the world around her. Does that carry no weight to you? Why? because based on an abstract idea you've given a cluster of cells the "life" trump card? She should have to undergo any amount of suffering or damage because of a tiny cluster of cells' potential?
Having a baby isn't "no big deal" just because women do it frequently. Having a baby changes a woman's body forever. When was the last time you have your body permanently altered against your will? When I gave birth to my son, I broke my tail bone and sustained second degree tearing. Breaking bones is unusual, but tearing is very, very common. When's the last time you've had your genitals torn apart to the degree that they need sowing back together against your will?
This is to say nothing about the fact that some women experience postpartum depression, psychosis, incontinence, mastitis, and a host of other impermanent and permanent changes.
The only time a woman should ever go through pregnancy and delivery is when she wants to. If it's a choice, it can be a beautiful, powerful experience. If it's NOT a choice, it's barbaric to impose on someone. The "when does life begin" philosophical gray area is simply not concrete enough to justify a very real repercussion on an unwilling participant.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 05:14:27 PM
Wrath have you ever collected flowers, squashed a bug, or eaten meat? Each of those is the equivalent to the act of an abortion depending on the cycle of pregnancy, maybe you have never done any of the above and if so this question doesn't stand, but if you have then why is the destruction of those lives alright and abortion isn't? There is a reason why there is a cut of point for an abortion.
I would agree that the destruction of those lives is alright,but they are not equivalent to abortion. A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either -- and while I think that squashing bugs should be avoided where unnecessary, in some cases it entirely cannot be avoided. Eating meat has been seen as necessary to our survival for a long time -- but that may be less and less true today. I believe that some day we will all be either vegans or eating synthetic meat.
They are indeed equivalent to abortion if we remove our opinions of potential life significance. In its current state, a cluster of cells is nothing more than a cluster of cells. Unless you can explain why a persons opinion of potential life significance should be considered significant in the first place, then the default position will remain in the hands of the host.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMI don't believe anyones life has value beyond how it affects me or those close to me, or those I rely on to enjoy my life and exist in society. And I dont expect anything less from anyone else in valuing mine. If someones actions are an impedement to me I will try to eliminate it or them from my sphere of experience. I'd stop at anything illegal (for which I'm likely to be caught) because I'm at the mercy of social and legal law. I don't value a foetus' life because it doesn't affect me. I've had an abortion (so to speak). I didn't mourn its death because I didnt love it, like it or want it. I was totally indifferent to it. In fact I saw a scan of it in my partners tummy before the abortion. It really didn't mean anything to me.
I'm not forcing value judgements on anyones life. I am asking that I be left alone with reciprocal respect to live mine.
If you claim that you will do whatever you please short of "anything illegal (for which I'm likely to be caught)", then I will merely take this to mean that you are too lazy to consider the ethics of anything and ignore your valuation of the fetus's life, given that you've left it up to everybody else to determine the law and force you to adhere to it.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMMy assumption was that you were telling the truth when you said:
"Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie refused to get married until gay marriage is legal, even though neither is gay -- something that I've always admired".
Does that not qualify as emotional investment?
You do feel the same emotional investment toward abortion don't you?
I was telling the truth, but that is not what you are assuming. You are assuming that somebody has to be emotionally invested in something to support it or oppose it. I would argue instead that plenty of us are instead emotionally invested in trying to do what is right in all aspects of life.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMQuote from: Wrath
Your 'legal system has decided that the "inherent value" assertion has its limits when weighed against' WHAT?
The mothers ability to look after her baby, the health of the baby, the prognosis for disease, the percieved quality of life of the baby, the desire of the mother not to have a baby...
I did not say that there were no exceptions to my assessment of abortion -- I do believe that the health of the baby and the mother both can determine that an abortion is either necessary or acceptable. However, unless the baby's quality of life is actually inherently bad, like a life of pain, then the solution is not to abort it, it is for society to help improve its quality of life. The desire of the mother not to have a baby is not an acceptable excuse for termination.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMQuote from: Wrath
I continue to hold that simply viewing something in its current state is a one-dimensional way of thinking and the fetus has a future that you can deny it.
One-dimentional? I say pragmatic.
If you consider ignoring the passage of time to be pragmatic, then that's your handicap. Just take a look at the financial system -- everything is traded based on future expectations.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 06:16:42 PMJust for the record, I'm only debating my position with you - there's no malice here... ;D
Oh, don't worry... I sound pretty serious sometimes but I'm secretly enjoying myself. :D
Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?
Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?
Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".
WTF how is a pregnant woman NOT a first party in a pregnancy? Define pregnancy without a uterus, please.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 10, 2012, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?
Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".
WTF how is a pregnant woman NOT a first party in a pregnancy? Define pregnancy without a uterus, please.
Of course she is first party to her pregnancy, but she is not first party to the fetus's life. It deserves to be given the opportunity to determine the value of its own life.
Also, I really don't appreciate it when everybody starts responding to my responses to other people. It's hard enough to debate five people at once, much less debate five people five times at once. I'm not going to respond to these often.
Edit: For that matter, I'm taking a break. See you all later. Try not to grace me with more than five lengthy posts.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:28:29 PM
A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either -- and while I think that squashing bugs should be avoided where unnecessary, in some cases it entirely cannot be avoided. Eating meat has been seen as necessary to our survival for a long time -- but that may be less and less true today. I believe that some day we will all be either vegans or eating synthetic meat.
Flora is more important to life on this earth than anything a human has ever been able to produced, same for bugs as they help in the reproductive process of said flora. We don't actually need to eat meat to survive as there isn't anything that is unique to it, we eat it because it tastes good and in terms of production is easier than fruit and veg.
What's your view on spilling the seed or periods, it all has the potential for life. And what about women that need to have abortions due to medical reasons, i.e, fallopian tube pregnancies. Or if a woman has aids or hiv and know it will be passed onto the child.
Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 08:01:22 PM
Flora is more important to life on this earth than anything a human has ever been able to produced, same for bugs as they help in the reproductive process of said flora. We don't actually need to eat meat to survive as there isn't anything that is unique to it, we eat it because it tastes good and in terms of production is easier than fruit and veg.
I don't particularly disagree with anything said here, except that "it tastes good" is not an acceptable excuse for slaughtering animals of questionable sentience. I don't believe any of this contradicts my point of view.
Quote from: Crow on July 10, 2012, 08:01:22 PMWhat's your view on spilling the seed or periods, it all has the potential for life. And what about women that need to have abortions due to medical reasons, i.e, fallopian tube pregnancies. Or if a woman has aids or hiv and know it will be passed onto the child.
Sperm and eggs are a different story. As it is, they do not have the potential for life, you have to give it to them -- and we do. I am merely opposed to giving it then taking it away.
I am not opposed to abortions in the case of health risks.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 10, 2012, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on July 10, 2012, 06:54:26 PM
Is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it seems the above question is your main concern. When talking about a collection of cells, any third party opinion on its potential life are irrelevant. If we remove our opinions of potential life significance, in its current state, the collection of cells bares no significance. If the woman hosting the collection of cells decides its potenial life is significant (or not), who am I, other than a third party viewer, to tell her otherwise?
Tell her otherwise? She herself is a third party. The only first party IS the "collection of cells" -- which I do not even find an appropriate term for the fetus. Not just any collection of cells has the potential to become a fully developed human, and I see no reason to remove "our opinions of potential life significance".
WTF how is a pregnant woman NOT a first party in a pregnancy? Define pregnancy without a uterus, please.
Of course she is first party to her pregnancy, but she is not first party to the fetus's life. It deserves to be given the opportunity to determine the value of its own life.
Also, I really don't appreciate it when everybody starts responding to my responses to other people. It's hard enough to debate five people at once, much less debate five people five times at once. I'm not going to respond to these often.
Sorry, but it's not a private conversation and, to be frank, I find a lot of what you say to be pretty inflammatory. ThinkAnarchy started a pretty controversial thread on anarcho-libertarianism and he was able to keep up with the sea of dissenting opinions. You can do it too, I have faith in you. Besides, you didn't respond to my post.
My point is that a zygote (since you insist that we use the "proper" term. Fetus is only medically appropriate after a certain amount of time) does NOT have a life and only exists as related to a pregnancy. You insist on conflating potentiality with life itself, but the woman who owns the uterus that the zygote is dependent on is
absolutely an agent in this. If she wasn't an agent, you could remove the woman, and the uterus and the zygote's "potential" would remain. The "potential" (and, by your argument, "life") is completely dependent on the pregnancy.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:08:45 PM
I don't believe any of this contradicts my point of view.
That's not what I was trying to do, I was trying to gauge your perception of abortion from a wider perspective outside of the human experience.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:08:45 PM
I am not opposed to abortions in the case of health risks.
Is it just direct health risks? What about mental health risks? If so where do you then cross the line at what is a mental health risk?
(Disagree with the statement about sperm and eggs not having the potential for life as by there very definition they do, but that's neither hear nor there really.)
I think all of us are more in favour of birth control and a healthy and good sex education than abortion. That some religious folks think that all three are bad is not our problem, because we are atheists. OK, that still doesn't stop all abortions. But, hopefully some unwanted pregnancies are avoided, because people should know what the risks are of having unprotected sex.
I hate abortions. Not because I'm pro-life, but because it is a horrible decision to make. it could hunt the women/girls minds for years to come. I know a woman who did it when she was a student. Her boyfriend died in car accident and she could not cope with her unborn twins. 30 years later she is still not sure whether she made the right decision or not. She made a very rational decision at that time and I respect her for that.
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
Hehehehehehehehe :D *Pokes Stevil in the ribs* Look over there, Stevil! What is that? Better go investigate.....
I'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)
....but, this is the point of contention here.
Wrath assumes it is the purpose of government to define and enforce a moral society, thus he is against all forms of "murder" and for government enforcement.
He has stated "Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong" which I think is a false perception of the law.
I would never support a government whom want to enforce a moral belief system onto us, as most of us here think morality is either subjective or non existent then the question is, whose morality is it that the government is going to enforce on us?
I simply want society to be safe and stable. A mother aborting her fetus does not make society dangerous for me. Therefore I think the decision is out of the government's hands as it does not meet the purpose of a government. The responsibility falls onto the mother alone.
I am happy for people to try and convince her not to abort, but they must be respectful and not forceful, ultimately it is her choice.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:08:45 PM
I am not opposed to abortions in the case of health risks.
Here are my thoughts around this point. Pregnancy and birth have inherent health risks. Women can develop diabetes, high blood pressure, are at increased risk for blood clots, and their bodies are very much changed by enduring a pregnancy. The risk of death during delivery is very low now, but it still happens. Even with a normal pregnancy and delivery, uterine and bladder prolapse risk jumps, and having children is a common cause of urinary incontinence. Does all the above not count as "abortion in case of health risks"? Is it right to make a women take those risks whether she wants to or not, based on the potential life (which is not guaranteed) of the embryo or fetus?
Of course, there is an over-arcing issue of morality here. We're arguing what is wrong and what is right, but what is the argument that morality is objective and should be applied universally? That's too much for this thread, but there have been some threads on the subject that you might find interesting. However, until a case can be made for using morality as a foundation for arguing abortion, I think the more objective ground of arguing whether or not it is harmful to humanity or society would be more accepted.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:23:35 PM
2. I do not believe that you should be legally obligated to save me with one of your kidneys -- because you are not in any way responsible for me. A fetus comes into existence because of the actions of a man and a woman -- and they are therefore responsible for it. Let me give an example of my own -- Let's say that you and I were born together, attached as Siamese twins, and we were perfectly capable of surviving that way. Then a doctor comes along and says to you "I can remove your twin from you, but it will kill him." Does your right to your body allow you to merely discard mine?
Okay, let's say that my child (already born) that I created with my body needs a kidney to live. Sure, me personally, I would give my child my heart if he needed it. But, and this is my point, should I be
required by law to give him my kidney because I created him and am therefore responsible for him? We're talking about legalities, not about what is the loving thing to do. The bottom line is that a fetus needs a woman's body in order to live. So, do we condone making laws that force a woman to give use of her body to someone else against her will?
The thing with the conjoined twins isn't quite the same, because it's hard to argue who "owns" the body since we've shared it since birth. It's pretty clear that my body is owned by me since I have had it for 32 years without sharing it with anyone else (except for the 9 months I carried my son.)
I also agree with DJ; pregnancy is not just something that you go through for 9 months. My body still isn't same and my son is 4 and I work my butt off at getting/staying in shape. There are parts of me that I know will never be the same no matter what I do. I agree that it is barbaric to make someone go through that against her will.
Also, you'll probably get more than 5 responses. You can pick and choose what you reply t, but trying to impose limits prolly won't work. Just sayin'.
ETA: Just re-read Dj's post. *Shudder* Yes, the tearing. I called it the Franken-vagina once I was able to laugh again. *Shudder*
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 10:07:36 PM
Also, you'll probably get more than 5 responses. You can pick and choose what you reply t, but trying to impose limits prolly won't work. Just sayin'.
Agreed. However, I read it TIC.
I have another thought about treating living things with potentiality in mind.
The ultimate "actualization" of human potential from a chronological point of view is death. It might sound morbid, but it's true. If we ignore the present and base our arguments and defenses of what constitutes life based on what something "will be", it all becomes moot. We all become dead. Can I kill someone and defend my actions by saying, "well, he was going to die someday anyway." No. I think, similarly, we can't treat a zygote as anything other than a zygote because, factually, it's not. Potentiality as an argument taken to it's extreme, is still non-existence. I really don't think it's a solid foundation for an argument against abortion unless you start attributing souls, God's will, and other theisty things to it.
It's a woman's body. A woman's choice.
I'm not sure what there is to argue about it.
And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:19:10 AM
And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*
Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. :P
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 12, 2012, 01:20:20 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:19:10 AM
And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*
Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. :P
Hope you recovered well since then :<
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:22:42 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 12, 2012, 01:20:20 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:19:10 AM
And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*
Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. :P
Hope you recovered well since then :<
Haha, I'm all fine and dandy. My tail bone did give me trouble for two years or so, but I'm good. :) I'm in the best shape of my life, all things considered.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 12, 2012, 01:40:01 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:22:42 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 12, 2012, 01:20:20 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:19:10 AM
And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*
Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. :P
Hope you recovered well since then :<
Haha, I'm all fine and dandy. My tail bone did give me trouble for two years or so, but I'm good. :)
That sounds so painful ;_;
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:41:34 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 12, 2012, 01:40:01 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:22:42 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 12, 2012, 01:20:20 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 01:19:10 AM
And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*
Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. :P
Hope you recovered well since then :<
Haha, I'm all fine and dandy. My tail bone did give me trouble for two years or so, but I'm good. :)
That sounds so painful ;_;
Breaking your tail bone is pretty uncommon, but it did hurt like a bitch. I couldn't sit on hard chairs without a lot of pain for about two years or so. Picking up yoga and dancing really helped, actually.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
What matters is not when the fetus is "life"...what matters is when it is a person.
QuoteIf the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
Replace life with person for clarity and my answer is that no it's not significant...a egg and sperm both in many ways alive and have potential to become a human being but they aren't a person till a certain series of events has taken place.
Quote
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Are you intending to only talk about the fetal stage forward or do you mean developing embryo? The fetal stage begins 11 weeks in, and more than half of abortions occur before that stage. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm
I think that if a mother won't be able to take care of her child and wants to abort early on that it can sometimes be the more ethical decision....and of course women should have the right to control what happens to their own bodies. I also think there is a wide array of medical reasons for why carrying the fetus to term would be a unreasonable burden and numerous medical issues the fetus could have which would make carrying it to term immoral.
QuoteIs abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
Until such a time that there is a non-invasive method of removing a developing embryo from a woman's body then it is only the woman's concern.
Wow, that's quite a discussion.
Personally, I'm less concerned about what does or doesn't constitute life or alive. It's possible that some day I'll be in a persistent vegetative state, still technically alive, but with no hope of ever regaining consciousness again. In that circumstance, I would hope that my being alive would not prevent a doctor from allowing me to die.
When I think of the issue of abortion, I tend to think about two things: practicality and the basis of individual rights.
When thinking of abortion purely practically, I think our goal should be to make abortion safe and rare. Safe, of course, so that women don't get unnecessarily hurt or killed, and rare because, regardless of where one falls on the abortion debate, abortions are incredibly traumatic, life-changing procedures for many women. The best way I understand to make abortions safe is to keep them fully legal. It's in places where abortions are difficult or impossible to get legally where the procedure is performed unsafely the most, which results in needless suffering and death. The best way to make abortion rare has to be adequate sex education and access to birth control. We've seen it again and again and again: real sex education--not abstinence only--leads to a marked reduction in unwanted pregnancies because people understand better how to avoid getting pregnant/making someone pregnant. Sex education classes that appropriately label things like the pull-out method as myths that really aren't a substitute for birth control lead to less pulling out being used as birth control. And having the pill and condoms available for people who want them lead to the biggest reductions in unwanted pregnancies.
When thinking about the issue more from the intersection of individual rights and biology, I can't not think of the mother and the zygote/embryo/fetus (from here on, just "fetus") as being biologically linked. Like it or not, between conception and birth, the fetus living inside of the mother is entirely dependent on the mother for oxygen, nutrients, waste disposal and protection. It's not just that the fetus can't provide for him/her/itself, it's that the only way of functioning is through a direct physical connection to a human being who already has rights granted by law and society. If any part of that direct connection is lost, the result is either separation from the mother or death. So, when we discuss the individual rights and privacy of the expectant mother, we are talking about the individual rights and privacy of the entity of the mother, which includes the fetus. As such, I cannot imagine that the rights of the fetus supersede those of the mother until the moment of birth. Once that connection is severed, the infant becomes an individual, but before then the fetus is a part of the mother, and thus any decisions about the mother's body should be hers.
At least that's my take.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 07:28:29 PM
I would agree that the destruction of those lives is alright, but they are not equivalent to abortion. A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either
This is why it's not pointlessly playing semantics to discuss personhood rather than just if a fetus is "alive."
The whole abortion debate boils down to two questions: 1)At what point should a fetus have the same rights as humans who are already born 2)After that point, if any, do the rights of the fetus overrule the rights of the mother.
Using legal precedent for this relationship is difficult because in no other legal situation is a human living inside of another human. Keep in mind that if you decide that 1 is birth and 2 is birth that you create a legal system where a mother could not abort even if she medically could not carry to term without the death of herself and the fetus.
Quote from: Will on July 12, 2012, 02:22:55 AM
Wow, that's quite a discussion.
Personally, I'm less concerned about what does or doesn't constitute life or alive. It's possible that some day I'll be in a persistent vegetative state, still technically alive, but with no hope of ever regaining consciousness again. In that circumstance, I would hope that my being alive would not prevent a doctor from allowing me to die.
When I think of the issue of abortion, I tend to think about two things: practicality and the basis of individual rights.
When thinking of abortion purely practically, I think our goal should be to make abortion safe and rare. Safe, of course, so that women don't get unnecessarily hurt or killed, and rare because, regardless of where one falls on the abortion debate, abortions are incredibly traumatic, life-changing procedures for many women. The best way I understand to make abortions safe is to keep them fully legal. It's in places where abortions are difficult or impossible to get legally where the procedure is performed unsafely the most, which results in needless suffering and death. The best way to make abortion rare has to be adequate sex education and access to birth control. We've seen it again and again and again: real sex education--not abstinence only--leads to a marked reduction in unwanted pregnancies because people understand better how to avoid getting pregnant/making someone pregnant. Sex education classes that appropriately label things like the pull-out method as myths that really aren't a substitute for birth control lead to less pulling out being used as birth control. And having the pill and condoms available for people who want them lead to the biggest reductions in unwanted pregnancies.
When thinking about the issue more from the intersection of individual rights and biology, I can't not think of the mother and the zygote/embryo/fetus (from here on, just "fetus") as being biologically linked. Like it or not, between conception and birth, the fetus living inside of the mother is entirely dependent on the mother for oxygen, nutrients, waste disposal and protection. It's not just that the fetus can't provide for him/her/itself, it's that the only way of functioning is through a direct physical connection to a human being who already has rights granted by law and society. If any part of that direct connection is lost, the result is either separation from the mother or death. So, when we discuss the individual rights and privacy of the expectant mother, we are talking about the individual rights and privacy of the entity of the mother, which includes the fetus. As such, I cannot imagine that the rights of the fetus supersede those of the mother until the moment of birth. Once that connection is severed, the infant becomes an individual, but before then the fetus is a part of the mother, and thus any decisions about the mother's body should be hers.
At least that's my take.
This post is intelligent and should be bolded.
Seriously, i agree with everything you say 100%.
I went to a lake yesterday. It was a fairly secluded and quiet spot. Then, these 15 to 17 year old annoying, giggling, loud, and completely rude girls showed up and wouldn't calm down. For future refrence, is abortion only legal if they are your kids and haven't been born yet? I was considering aborting them, but I wasn't sure about the details.
Quote from: Genericguy on July 12, 2012, 02:58:19 AM
I went to a lake yesterday. It was a fairly secluded and quiet spot. Then, these 15 to 17 year old annoying, giggling, loud, and completely rude girls showed up and wouldn't calm down. For future refrence, is abortion only legal if they are your kids and haven't been born yet? I was considering aborting them, but I wasn't sure about the details.
haha, what you were thinking of doing starts with the letter M.
yes, i feel MOST teens should be disposed of. >_>;
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 12, 2012, 03:04:23 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on July 12, 2012, 02:58:19 AM
I went to a lake yesterday. It was a fairly secluded and quiet spot. Then, these 15 to 17 year old annoying, giggling, loud, and completely rude girls showed up and wouldn't calm down. For future refrence, is abortion only legal if they are your kids and haven't been born yet? I was considering aborting them, but I wasn't sure about the details.
haha, what you were thinking of doing starts with the letter M.
yes, i feel MOST teens should be disposed of. >_>;
We could call it post-natal abortion ;D.
I am suddenly fearful for my life.
Been a couple days, I've been pretty busy.
I don't actually intend to respond to any posts -- something which you guys might consider unfair -- but it would be a lot of posts to respond to and I'm sure that I would get a lot of responses immediately after I finished (and even before then, as well).
I'm sure you guys can respect, though, that I don't want to spend all my time debating here -- much less spend all my time here debating. I'll be around in other threads. :D
Quote from: Wrath on July 12, 2012, 09:40:50 AM
I don't actually intend to respond to any posts...
So in conclusion, I assume you value the life of the fertilised egg/zygote/fetus so much that you are in support of law to force a mother to go ahead with the pregnancy unless certain conditions exist (determined by you or your elect government) determining that abortion is a valid option.
And those conditions would presumable be related to whether the pregnancy was life threatening to the mother, but not concerned with defects in the baby e.g. down syndrome, spina bifida, conjoined twins, or other detectable, debilitating conditions or whether the pregnancy was due to a traumatic rape.
Government to decide, not the parents whom will have to live with and support the child. Hopefully with government providing financial support at the detriment of other areas of society that those funds could have gone towards.
And you base this all on your own sense of "morality" in that it is "wrong" for people to chose to abort. Where "wrong" is decided by your emotional reaction or philosophy that all human life is sacred. Thus you know better than the people whose lives that this law impacts.
Quote from: Stevil on July 12, 2012, 09:56:56 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 12, 2012, 09:40:50 AM
I don't actually intend to respond to any posts...
So in conclusion, I assume you value the life of the fertilised egg/zygote/fetus so much that you are in support of law to force a mother to go ahead with the pregnancy unless certain conditions exist (determined by you or your elect government) determining that abortion is a valid option.
And those conditions would presumable be related to whether the pregnancy was life threatening to the mother, but not concerned with defects in the baby e.g. down syndrome, spina bifida, conjoined twins, or other detectable, debilitating conditions or whether the pregnancy was due to a traumatic rape.
Government to decide, not the parents whom will have to live with and support the child. Hopefully with government providing financial support at the detriment of other areas of society that those funds could have gone towards.
And you base this all on your own sense of "morality" in that it is "wrong" for people to chose to abort. Where "wrong" is decided by your emotional reaction or philosophy that all human life is sacred. Thus you know better than the people whose lives that this law impacts.
I have to say, you did not understand my point of view, or my reasoning, and you said a great many things that I disagree with. However, I did say I wasn't going to respond, and the fact that you quoted that indicates to me you are just trying to bait me into doing so. :-X
Quote from: Wrath on July 12, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
I have to say, you did not understand my point of view, or my reasoning, and you said a great many things that I disagree with. However, I did say I wasn't going to respond, and the fact that you quoted that indicates to me you are just trying to bait me into doing so. :-X
Honestly, I'm just keen to know what your point of view is, this is your thread and you have decided not to participate, I am baffled by this.
Quote from: Stevil on July 12, 2012, 10:11:55 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 12, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
I have to say, you did not understand my point of view, or my reasoning, and you said a great many things that I disagree with. However, I did say I wasn't going to respond, and the fact that you quoted that indicates to me you are just trying to bait me into doing so. :-X
Honestly, I'm just keen to know what your point of view is, this is your thread and you have decided not to participate, I am baffled by this.
I wasn't aware that the original poster had to actively maintain their thread throughout its entire life-time. I would probably continue to post if I had any support or at least less opposition. I did get annoyed when I saw people responding to my response to other people responding to my response to other people. I don't want to have to debate each of five points with five people each.
Quote from: Wrath on July 12, 2012, 10:19:37 AM
I did get annoyed when I saw people responding to my response to other people responding to my response to other people. I don't want to have to debate each of five points with five people each.
That is the way public forums operate, even group discussions in real life, people chime in when they have something they want to say, even if they weren't the original two having the conversation.
You certainly don't have to address everyone, or every point. But the way I see it, you have actively challenged people in this thread when their viewpoint was different to yours, but you have offered little clarity to your own viewpoint. In my post above I assumed you weren't going to post anymore so I tried to put together a summary of my understanding of your position. It seems I was wrong, but you aren't willing to clarify. Maybe you feel attacked or overwhelmed, I'm not sure, but you must have known, going into this thread that most atheists are going to be pro-choice on this matter.
I don't feel anyone has attacked you personally or belittled your position, so I am baffled at your early out from this thread.
Quote from: Stevil on July 12, 2012, 10:27:56 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 12, 2012, 10:19:37 AM
I did get annoyed when I saw people responding to my response to other people responding to my response to other people. I don't want to have to debate each of five points with five people each.
That is the way public forums operate, even group discussions in real life, people chime in when they have something they want to say, even if they weren't the original two having the conversation.
You certainly don't have to address everyone, or every point. But the way I see it, you have actively challenged people in this thread when their viewpoint was different to yours, but you have offered little clarity to your own viewpoint. In my post above I assumed you weren't going to post anymore so I tried to put together a summary of my understanding of your position. It seems I was wrong, but you aren't willing to clarify. Maybe you feel attacked or overwhelmed, I'm not sure, but you must have known, going into this thread that most atheists are going to be pro-choice on this matter.
I don't feel anyone has attacked you personally or belittled your position, so I am baffled at your early out from this thread.
You say I've offered little clarity to my own viewpoint, but I have by far the most posts in the thread, and the longest initial post of my opinion. You misquoted me a couple pages back when you said that my reasoning was that "murder is wrong", but I never said that, I only compared abortion to murder. In both cases, you are denying somebody their future. It was argued against me that the embryo/fetus cannot conceive of its own mortality or future, therefore it is not wrong -- but I countered that there are many contradictions to this. You would consider it "wrong" for me to kill you in your sleep, even though you could not conceive of your own mortality at the time. We also support the comatose, the mentally ill, and the elderly with dementia, even though they may be no more capable of it.
There's a great many points that have been discussed, I consider the above possibly the most significant -- but if you actually read any of my posts, you would see that I have offered plenty of clarity. The reason why I am not continuing
at the moment is simply because I do not feel like it. ::)
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 09:26:16 AM
Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong to deprive a person of their future, just the way abortion deprives a fetus of their future.
I see three main points that you have stated
"I cannot see how any burden that is non-life threatening justifies depriving somebody of life.
I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain.
The abortion does not only end its current existence but also prevents its future existence -- the same reason why we outlaw murder."
I feel my summary post was consistent with these.
Quote from: Stevil on July 12, 2012, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 09:26:16 AM
Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong to deprive a person of their future, just the way abortion deprives a fetus of their future.
I see three main points that you have stated
"I cannot see how any burden that is non-life threatening justifies depriving somebody of life.
I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain.
The abortion does not only end its current existence but also prevents its future existence -- the same reason why we outlaw murder."
I feel my summary post was consistent with these.
Your summary suggested that my reason for "wrong" is based on emotional or philosophical reaction rather than reason, but I have done nothing other than compare abortion to already well-established ethics.
Quote from: Stevil on July 10, 2012, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
Hehehehehehehehe :D *Pokes Stevil in the ribs* Look over there, Stevil! What is that? Better go investigate.....
I'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)
Steady up man! You and I are entitled to bang on about the myth of morality as much as anybody else is entitled about the myth of theism (which of course we also bang on about as well). One day they will listen! Mark my words.
An OP might not be obligated to baby his thread forever, but you started this two days ago.
And, really, there haven't that many people who've chimed in. Not more than your pre-described "5", really.
You have to understand that it's pretty frustrating to have someone come in, ask for respect, completely challenge your views, and then refuse to acknowledge your rebuttal. How you would feel is someone walked into a party and did the same thing? "Hey guys! You're all wrong! Here's why! No-no-no, I'm not going to respond to everything you have to say. Don't have time. Later!"
It's pretty rude. I would appreciate it if you could address at least some of my points.
Once you take religion out of the equation, then the issue simply becomes which society values more- the contingent ability of the foetus to become a human being or the freedom of individuals not to be forced to procreate against their will. Personally, I think I would always incline to according liberty to the individual who is a fully formed buman and is capable of making an informed choice. Maybe this a bias in favour of actualised human beings over potential human beings given that I am a member of the former camp. I think myself I just prefer a society where individual freedoms take priority over abstract ethical argumentation.
Quote from: En_Route on July 12, 2012, 12:27:14 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 10, 2012, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
Hehehehehehehehe :D *Pokes Stevil in the ribs* Look over there, Stevil! What is that? Better go investigate.....
I'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)
Steady up man! You and I are entitled to bang on about the myth of morality as much as anybody else is entitled about the myth of theism (which of course we also bang on about as well). One day they will listen! Mark my words.
I listen. And I agreed with everything Stevil said as much on the 47th occasion that I did on the first... :D
I'm completely flummoxed by this thread. You bring up the topic of abortion, which I'm sure you knew would be controversial. You indicated that this thread was not really for debate, but then immediately began debating people. Then you tried to dictate the rules of the conversation; you don't want more than 5 replies, people should reply to only you and not to each other, and now that you have seen that no one else really agrees with you, you want to stop talking about it.
Quote from: Ali on July 12, 2012, 03:51:53 PM
I'm completely flummoxed by this thread. You bring up the topic of abortion, which I'm sure you knew would be controversial. You indicated that this thread was not really for debate, but then immediately began debating people. Then you tried to dictate the rules of the conversation; you don't want more than 5 replies, people should reply to only you and not to each other, and now that you have seen that no one else really agrees with you, you want to stop talking about it.
is this guy new to forums?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 12, 2012, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 12, 2012, 12:27:14 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 10, 2012, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 10, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
Hehehehehehehehe :D *Pokes Stevil in the ribs* Look over there, Stevil! What is that? Better go investigate.....
I'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)
Steady up man! You and I are entitled to bang on about the myth of morality as much as anybody else is entitled about the myth of theism (which of course we also bang on about as well). One day they will listen! Mark my words.
I listen. And I agreed with everything Stevil said as much on the 47th occasion that I did on the first... :D
It's known as reinforcement, an invaluable pedagogic technique.
That's it? Really? I'm disappointed. Anyone with greater stamina care to take up the pro-life stance so it can continue?
Quote from: Wrath on July 12, 2012, 11:24:16 AM
Your summary suggested that my reason for "wrong" is based on emotional or philosophical reaction rather than reason, but I have done nothing other than compare abortion to already well-established ethics.
Your philosophical stance is that people ought not be deprived of their future.
You are having an emotional reaction indicated by "I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible..."
Your "reason" is based on your asserted philosophy and your emotional reaction.
OK folks. Five pages isn't too bad, and Wrath has (in very polite terms) said that he doesn't want to continue. I don't think cajoling him is going to do much good. Let him catch his breath, relax and get to know this place a little better. He did leave the door open to coming back to this topic at some point, after all.
Just take him at his word and leave it be for now, or talk amongst yourselves. :P
Quote from: stevilI'll try my darndest not to get into a morality debate here, I understand we are all sick of my endless rants (me included)
I'm not sick of the Stevil rants.
Nobody likes abortion. But it may well be a necessary act in today's world. Lack of new people to continue the species is no longer the problem.
It is a tough call, but certainly no one is more qualified to make it then the mother.
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
As demonstrated in my introduction thread, a lot of people are interested in the abortion debate and my opinions on it, being a "pro-lifer". :)
However, there are so many different directions in which a debate on abortion can go, that I'm also interested in hearing your opinions on the topic before any real debate. So, to be clear, this thread is not so much for debate as it is for people to express their opinions first.
Some of the important questions in the issue include:
- At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
- If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
- Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
- Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
I will follow this with a post of my opinions, and I look forward to all of yours. ;)
Edit: At the least, because this thread is for the sake of gathering opinions, do not question somebody else's without first posting your own.
At the OP, I have not read the whole thread at this point.
- Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
The woman's concern only (the term mother is pejorative in this context as we are discussing a woman's choice about becoming a mother or not), which renders the rest of the discussion moot. If I were a woman I would not consider myself a self-determining free individual unless I had complete control over my own body and all things within it. After that it is down to the individual and their own world view as to what they do should they become pregnant. And that will be influenced on the circumstances of the pregnancy; both how it came about and the impact termination or birth would have on the woman in the future.
I am not pro-abortion. In my opinion every abortion is the result of some sort of failure. In an ideal world there would be no abortions or rape or forgetful women who miss their pill. But we don't live in an ideal world so abortion may be the course of last resort if we are to consider a woman a 'self-determining free individual'.
I would consider any person who feels they have the right to influence a society so that women are not self-determining free individuals has far too high an opinion of their own opinion. Because that person is not the one actually facing the choice. Only the woman facing the choice can fully comprehend her circumstances and thus make a truly informed decision. They are also the only person that will have to live with that choice.
Nobody should be forced to use their body for something they do not want to use it for; that goes equally for both men and women.
Quote from: TankI would consider any person who feels they have the right to influence a society so that women are not self-determining free individuals has far too high an opinion of their own opinion.
Quite. And I say that no such opinions need be taken seriously if we know they are, at bottom, driven by religion.
Quote from: Amalthea on July 15, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
Like you, for reasons, I've already given, I would prefer to live in a society which was pro- choice ( though in fact I don't). I wouldn't distinguish between early and late-term abortions. I suspect that the difference in your attitude relies on an understandable emotional response, as the foetus begins to more fully resemble a newborn child. I think however to conflate what you find personally upsetting with something being "wrong" trespasses into the realm of irrationality which we here fondly like to imagine is the preserve of theists.
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
Some of the important questions in the issue include:
• At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
In my view it is when it is breathing on its own.
• If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
Not until it takes it first breath
• Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
yes
• Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
It is the parent's choice only.
Edit: Added attribution of quote. - Tank
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
Some of the important questions in the issue include:
• At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
In my view it is when it is breathing on its own.
• If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
Not until it takes it first breath
• Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
yes
• Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
It is the parent's choice only.
These are just a set of arbitrary assertions. They may be of interest to you, but I'm not sure what weight you expect them to carry with anyone else.
Quote from: Amalthea on July 15, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
I find it interesting that even those of us that are pro-choice always feel the need to put on the "I don't approve of using abortion as contraception" disclaimer. I believe that this has been influenced by the arguments and myths put forth by the pro-life movement. I have to think that the actual incidences of women who use abortion as a form of contraception is fairly low. I can't imagine a sane woman who would choose to have an expensive and painful surgical procedure over and over again rather than using condoms or hormonal birth control.
Quote from: Ali on July 15, 2012, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Amalthea on July 15, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
I find it interesting that even those of us that are pro-choice always feel the need to put on the "I don't approve of using abortion as contraception" disclaimer. I believe that this has been influenced by the arguments and myths put forth by the pro-life movement. I have to think that the actual incidences of women who use abortion as a form of contraception is fairly low. I can't imagine a sane woman who would choose to have an expensive and painful surgical procedure over and over again rather than using condoms or hormonal birth control.
I think it's fair enough to be saddened that some women are reckless , someimes repeatedly reckless, about becoming pregnant, if only because of the harmful effects they may suffer. Such women do exist and they are usually quite sane. But I can't see why, if you are fully pro- choice ,the motivation or circumstances of the woman having the abortion matters.
Personally, I don't care if a woman gets 30 abortions. It just seems like an inefficient way of managing your life/reproduction. Even if you aren't pregnant for very long, all of the hormonal changes can really screw you up -- and then you have to book a clinic appointment, possibly take some time off work, heal, etc. I just don't know why anyone would regularly choose this method unless they're just generally a person who doesn't have their shit together.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 15, 2012, 05:52:55 PM
Personally, I don't care if a woman gets 30 abortions. It just seems like an inefficient way of managing your life/reproduction. Even if you aren't pregnant for very long, all of the hormonal changes can really screw you up -- and then you have to book a clinic appointment, possibly take some time off work, heal, etc. I just don't know why anyone would regularly choose this method unless they're just generally a person who doesn't have their shit together.
I agree with all you say. I would add however that the number of people who don't have their shit together is not inconsequential.
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 15, 2012, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Amalthea on July 15, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
I find it interesting that even those of us that are pro-choice always feel the need to put on the "I don't approve of using abortion as contraception" disclaimer. I believe that this has been influenced by the arguments and myths put forth by the pro-life movement. I have to think that the actual incidences of women who use abortion as a form of contraception is fairly low. I can't imagine a sane woman who would choose to have an expensive and painful surgical procedure over and over again rather than using condoms or hormonal birth control.
I think it's fair enough to be saddened that some women are reckless , someimes repeatedly reckless, about becoming pregnant, if only because of the harmful effects they may suffer. Such women do exist and they are usually quite sane. But I can't see why, if you are fully pro- choice ,the motivation or circumstances of the woman having the abortion matters.
I just don't think that women truly using "abortion as birth control" is so common that we always have to call it out. I think that the suspicion "Women are using it as birth control!" is a seed planted by the pro-life movement to paint women who seek abortions as completely thoughtless and irresponsible. Does it *ever* happen? Probably. There are exceptions to any rule. I still balk at the idea that there are a mass of women out there actually using abortion as their primary form of birth control.
Per a decidedly biased source:
QuoteMYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.
In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.
If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html)
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 12:41:58 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 15, 2012, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Amalthea on July 15, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
I find it interesting that even those of us that are pro-choice always feel the need to put on the "I don't approve of using abortion as contraception" disclaimer. I believe that this has been influenced by the arguments and myths put forth by the pro-life movement. I have to think that the actual incidences of women who use abortion as a form of contraception is fairly low. I can't imagine a sane woman who would choose to have an expensive and painful surgical procedure over and over again rather than using condoms or hormonal birth control.
I think it's fair enough to be saddened that some women are reckless , someimes repeatedly reckless, about becoming pregnant, if only because of the harmful effects they may suffer. Such women do exist and they are usually quite sane. But I can't see why, if you are fully pro- choice ,the motivation or circumstances of the woman having the abortion matters.
I just don't think that women truly using "abortion as birth control" is so common that we always have to call it out. I think that the suspicion "Women are using it as birth control!" is a seed planted by the pro-life movement to paint women who seek abortions as completely thoughtless and irresponsible. Does it *ever* happen? Probably. There are exceptions to any rule. I still balk at the idea that there are a mass of women out there actually using abortion as their primary form of birth control.
Per a decidedly biased source:
QuoteMYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.
In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.
If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html)
No one here claimed that abortion is used by more than half of women as a primary method of birth control. I brought up the argument to question whether it is at all morally suspect to kill fetuses, and at what point a fetus becomes what we consider a human being.
Quote from: Amalthea on July 16, 2012, 12:55:05 AM
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 12:41:58 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 15, 2012, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Amalthea on July 15, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
I find it interesting that even those of us that are pro-choice always feel the need to put on the "I don't approve of using abortion as contraception" disclaimer. I believe that this has been influenced by the arguments and myths put forth by the pro-life movement. I have to think that the actual incidences of women who use abortion as a form of contraception is fairly low. I can't imagine a sane woman who would choose to have an expensive and painful surgical procedure over and over again rather than using condoms or hormonal birth control.
I think it's fair enough to be saddened that some women are reckless , someimes repeatedly reckless, about becoming pregnant, if only because of the harmful effects they may suffer. Such women do exist and they are usually quite sane. But I can't see why, if you are fully pro- choice ,the motivation or circumstances of the woman having the abortion matters.
I just don't think that women truly using "abortion as birth control" is so common that we always have to call it out. I think that the suspicion "Women are using it as birth control!" is a seed planted by the pro-life movement to paint women who seek abortions as completely thoughtless and irresponsible. Does it *ever* happen? Probably. There are exceptions to any rule. I still balk at the idea that there are a mass of women out there actually using abortion as their primary form of birth control.
Per a decidedly biased source:
QuoteMYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.
In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.
If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html)
No one here claimed that abortion is used by more than half of women as a primary method of birth control. I brought up the argument to question whether it is at all morally suspect to kill fetuses, and at what point a fetus becomes what we consider a human being.
How does the argument that one could use it as birth control if one were willing (and could afford) to submit her body to multiple surgeries every year (and also the hormonal upheavals that follow being pregnant and then not pregnant) add or detract from the "morality" of abortion?
Quote from: Amalthea on July 16, 2012, 12:55:05 AM
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 12:41:58 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 15, 2012, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Amalthea on July 15, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
I am pro-choice for many of the commonly mentioned reasons (supporting rape victims, no child should be forced into the world unwanted, ect.) and I fully advocate providing women legal and safe abortion options. Yet it saddens me to hear about women who use abortion as their only form of contraception, carrying out multiple abortions instead of using preventative birth control methods. Late-term abortions also seem wrong. Even though I believe a person fully develops through nature/nurture, the thought of killing an ever more recognizable human being remains pretty personally upsetting.
I find it interesting that even those of us that are pro-choice always feel the need to put on the "I don't approve of using abortion as contraception" disclaimer. I believe that this has been influenced by the arguments and myths put forth by the pro-life movement. I have to think that the actual incidences of women who use abortion as a form of contraception is fairly low. I can't imagine a sane woman who would choose to have an expensive and painful surgical procedure over and over again rather than using condoms or hormonal birth control.
I think it's fair enough to be saddened that some women are reckless , someimes repeatedly reckless, about becoming pregnant, if only because of the harmful effects they may suffer. Such women do exist and they are usually quite sane. But I can't see why, if you are fully pro- choice ,the motivation or circumstances of the woman having the abortion matters.
I just don't think that women truly using "abortion as birth control" is so common that we always have to call it out. I think that the suspicion "Women are using it as birth control!" is a seed planted by the pro-life movement to paint women who seek abortions as completely thoughtless and irresponsible. Does it *ever* happen? Probably. There are exceptions to any rule. I still balk at the idea that there are a mass of women out there actually using abortion as their primary form of birth control.
Per a decidedly biased source:
QuoteMYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.
In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.
If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html)
No one here claimed that abortion is used by more than half of women as a primary method of birth control. I brought up the argument to question whether it is at all morally suspect to kill fetuses, and at what point a fetus becomes what we consider a human being.
It seemed to me you were raising two separate and distinct points, firstly, about feeling it was " wrong" for women to use abortion as a contraceptive and secondly that it was also "wrong" to terminate late- term pregnancies. As far as I could see, both propositions were based on gut instinct.
The demarcation line between foetus and human being is arbitrary. For me I prefer to live in a society where women are not coerced into giving birth against their will because I think a society which puts a premium on individual liberty and consent is healthier and more conducive to human happiness. If all the women in the world decided that multiple abortions were the best form of contraception this clearly would have no bearing on my analysis.
Oooh boy, i go way for one night and this is what i come back to. :-\
Amalthea:
It really does not matter at what point -you- consider a fetus alive or not. We have established that a fetus is part of a mother/woman and ultimately it is her choice to abort.
Now, this is just a sad story if you actually believe women don't choose abortions unless they truly must. Whatever the reason, a woman has the RIGHT to choose. I don't care how many times she does make a choice; it remains hers and NO ONE elses. It truly makes me sick that someone can judge and disapprove what a woman does without even knowing her or what's going through her mind.
I don't encourage nor discourage abortions. I feel it's their choice, and who the fuck am i to tell her no or judge her? This world is already over popluated, and more than likely she wasn't mentally or finanically ready. I watch my a good friend raise a 3yr old child. i think she does think sometimes ' what if i aborted?'
she has no job and no one to support her. it's a sad and really miserable life.
(disclaimer: nothing at all against single parents. its tough. i respect anyone for their choices.)
shit happens, who are you to tell them abortion is murder or some other ancient world thinking? I support choice, because raising a human being is difficult and once they are born, you are always going to raise them. (it's like an unbreakable bond for most people.)
I choose not to have children, but look in awe who people who make such a huge sacrifice . Not for me, but definitely a tough 24/7 job, i bet.
sorry for mini-rant >> it's 5am
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 16, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
It really does not matter at what point -you- consider a fetus alive or not. We have established that a fetus is part of a mother/woman and ultimately it is her choice to abort.
I consider the fetus to be a person, a human and abortion to be murder.
But so what, who cares?
It seems we aren't inspired to use force against a woman choosing to kill her unborn.
If it doesn't harm me, and it doesn't make society unsafe for me, then I have no say on the matter. I will not enpower a government to make decisions on behalf of the mother. It is her choice. There are no consequences of this murder other then in the mind of the mother. Her problem, her choice.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 10:41:23 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 16, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
It really does not matter at what point -you- consider a fetus alive or not. We have established that a fetus is part of a mother/woman and ultimately it is her choice to abort.
I consider the fetus to be a person, a human and abortion to be murder.
But so what, who cares?
It seems we aren't inspired to use force against a woman choosing to kill her unborn.
If it doesn't harm me, and it doesn't make society unsafe for me, then I have no say on the matter. I will not enpower a government to make decisions on behalf of the mother. It is her choice. There are no consequences of this murder other then in the mind of the mother. Her problem, her choice.
I really hate when people use the words 'murder'. It's a nice way to make a probably already scared woman feel guilty and ashamed.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 16, 2012, 11:00:38 AM
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 10:41:23 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 16, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
It really does not matter at what point -you- consider a fetus alive or not. We have established that a fetus is part of a mother/woman and ultimately it is her choice to abort.
I consider the fetus to be a person, a human and abortion to be murder.
But so what, who cares?
It seems we aren't inspired to use force against a woman choosing to kill her unborn.
If it doesn't harm me, and it doesn't make society unsafe for me, then I have no say on the matter. I will not enpower a government to make decisions on behalf of the mother. It is her choice. There are no consequences of this murder other then in the mind of the mother. Her problem, her choice.
I really hate when people use the words 'murder'. It's a nice way to make a probably already scared woman feel guilty and ashamed.
I agree. Murder is a recognisable legal concept. Surprisingly, Stevil seems to be using it in a judgemental, moralistic sense.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 11:11:50 AM
I agree. Murder is a recognisable legal concept. Surprisingly, Stevil seems to be using it in a judgemental, moralistic sense.
You are making an assumption that i consider murder to be wrong.
I don't.
I see no reason to dance around the fact that abortion is the willful killing of a human life.
Of course I wouldn't rub this in the face of a woman who is taking action towards this path. It is none of my business.
But, yeah, I'm not using the term "murder" in its strictest term. I'm not considering the "against the law" aspect. Just in the sense that a person is being put to death by the premeditated and wilful act of another person.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 11:11:50 AM
I agree. Murder is a recognisable legal concept. Surprisingly, Stevil seems to be using it in a judgemental, moralistic sense.
You are making an assumption that i consider murder to be wrong.
I don't.
I see no reason to dance around the fact that abortion is the willful killing of a human life.
Of course I wouldn't rub this in the face of a woman who is taking action towards this path. It is none of my business.
LOL Ok, then that's different. ;)
I wouldn't call abortion murder, it's more like choosing not to save a potential person by going through months of discomfort, pain, distortion of your body and financial cost.
Is there a you've sinned so you should suffer element?
Evolution has given us a fear of death which keeps many of us toiling away through hard times. I think it's a bit of a trick that's been played on us, some lives seem pretty squalid or painful to me but people cling to them. Life is a gift I suppose but not necessarily welcomed by those who receive it. The same people who don't like abortion probably also argue against voluntary euthanasia, promote the sacred crap and disregard suffering. I don't see a fetus as much of a life, much less aware than many animals I've eaten. A life probably with less than mouse awareness can be ended, if not it may go on to be a human suffer and frolic but it will die eventually, probably in pain, possibly in fear.
If society fitted my utopian ideal and we weren't already overpopulated I might be a little more inclined to encourage a woman to have a child. Alas the world isn't an overwhelmingly positive place so I suggest the pro lifers improve it a bit by applying their values to their lives and let others do the same.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
But, yeah, I'm not using the term "murder" in its strictest term. I'm not considering the "against the law" aspect. Just in the sense that a person is being put to death by the premeditated and wilful act of another person.
I think when murder is used outside the legal sphere it is a loaded term, generally signifying disapproval at least and almost invariably some kind of normative judgement. I think by defining it as simply a premeditated act of killing you are using it in a rather specialised and unusual sense. If for example I turned up at your front door and lunged at you with a knife and you fortuitously were just polishing your shotgun and fired it at me in order to avoid certain death, that would be premeditated killing and therefore murder on your part, per your definition -or so it seems to me.
Agree that the word "murder" is a loaded term when dealing with abortion.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
If for example I turned up at your front door and lunged at you with a knife and you fortuitously were just polishing your shotgun and fired it at me in order to avoid certain death, that would be premeditated killing and therefore murder on your part, per your definition -or so it seems to me.
Wouldn't it though?
Not contesting the point in general, just the example, as I define murder as an unlawful act of ending another's life.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 16, 2012, 05:18:51 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
If for example I turned up at your front door and lunged at you with a knife and you fortuitously were just polishing your shotgun and fired it at me in order to avoid certain death, that would be premeditated killing and therefore murder on your part, per your definition -or so it seems to me.
Wouldn't it though?
Not contesting the point in general, just the example, as I define murder as an unlawful act of ending another's life.
It's interesting you say that. It supports my original point that murder is primarily a legal concept. In fact, in the UK, Stevil would not be guilty of murder in these circumstances.
As stated, not contesting the point - just the example given. What classifies as murder is not universally defined, after all.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 16, 2012, 05:53:42 PM
As stated, not contesting the point - just the example given. What classifies as murder is not universally defined, after all.
Since it's technically a legal term, if we want to split hairs I think we would rely on the legal definition if we needed to really pin it down. Of course, the legal definition may vary from country to country...Still, in no country where abortion is legal would it be defined as murder.
Indeed. Personally, I do not know of any country that defines abortion as murder... Well, maybe Vatican, but they do not fall under the "I know of" cathegory - my knowledge of that place is limited to it being a rather pathetic gathering of old men in robes and swiss guards with pikes... PIKES! In like... 2000-and-whatever-the-year-happens-to-be.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
I think when murder is used outside the legal sphere it is a loaded term, generally signifying disapproval at least and almost invariably some kind of normative judgement. I think by defining it as simply a premeditated act of killing you are using it in a rather specialised and unusual sense. If for example I turned up at your front door and lunged at you with a knife and you fortuitously were just polishing your shotgun and fired it at me in order to avoid certain death, that would be premeditated killing and therefore murder on your part, per your definition -or so it seems to me.
That would not be intentional or premeditated.
Your goal would be to defend yourself, and it is a spur of the moment thing.
With abortion, you are intentionally killing the zygote/fetus because you don't want it to be alive. It is not spur of the moment, and most of the time it is not life threatening, thus not self defense.
It is almost exactly the same as murder, the only difference is that the government hasn't made it against the law.
Stating that it is not murder, would be like saying that if the government wants to eradicate all murder, all that have to do is make killing people legal.
I can understand that the term murder can sit uncomfortably with many people, because they couple it with their belief in morality or with a "sin". I have no such beliefs, I don't have to dance away from the word.
If you want to cling to the legal definition and thus invalidate the word then simply replace it with "willful, intentional and premeditated killing of another person"
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:08:31 PM
Stating that it is not murder, would be like saying that if the government wants to eradicate all murder, all that have to do is make killing people legal.
That pretty much is what I would say. Though, we'd still have a "problem" with adults running wild killing other adults, so we'd have to create a new legal definition which would mean pretty much the same thing. It's still tied up in your definition of personhood. Personally, I think it's a stretch to equate the destruction of a fetus with the destruction of a functioning human who has thoughts/feelings/memories/loved ones, etc.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:08:31 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
I think when murder is used outside the legal sphere it is a loaded term, generally signifying disapproval at least and almost invariably some kind of normative judgement. I think by defining it as simply a premeditated act of killing you are using it in a rather specialised and unusual sense. If for example I turned up at your front door and lunged at you with a knife and you fortuitously were just polishing your shotgun and fired it at me in order to avoid certain death, that would be premeditated killing and therefore murder on your part, per your definition -or so it seems to me.
That would not be intentional or premeditated.
Your goal would be to defend yourself, and it is a spur of the moment thing.
With abortion, you are intentionally killing the zygote/fetus because you don't want it to be alive. It is not spur of the moment, and most of the time it is not life threatening, thus not self defense.
It is almost exactly the same as murder, the only difference is that the government hasn't made it against the law.
Stating that it is not murder, would be like saying that if the government wants to eradicate all murder, all that have to do is make killing people legal.
I can understand that the term murder can sit uncomfortably with many people, because they couple it with their belief in morality or with a "sin". I have no such beliefs, I don't have to dance away from the word.
If you want to cling to the legal definition and thus invalidate the word then simply replace it with "willful, intentional and premeditated killing of another person"
The dictionary definition of murder is the
unlawful and ptemeditated killing of another human being. I'm not sure that premeditated here really means much more than intentional. If I decide as I walk down the street that I will shoot you for the hell of it, that is murder in law, even though it is spur of the moment. If I lunge at you with my knife, you might well decide that the only safe course of action is to kill me. What gets you off the hook is not that you didn't intend to kill me but that the killing was committed in self- defence. That exception is itself a legalism.
Murder itself is a socially constructed concept and the legal definition will vary from society to society and from time to time. In some societies crimes of passion do not constitute murder, in others they do.
If you talk about murder outside the prevailing legal definition, you are engaging in a rhetorical device. Abortion involves killing a foetus. If you call that murder then you are implicitly condemning it and also necessarily saying that a foetus is either a human being or is equivalent to one. To pretend that labelling abortion as murder but simultaneously saying you are not passing any moral judgement doesn't really stack up in normal linguistic usage; as I've said, it also relies on the unarticulated and unexplained assumption that the foetus= human being.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 08:32:08 PM
Abortion involves killing a foetus. If you call that murder then you are implicitly condemning it and necessarily saying that a foetus is either a human being or is equivalent to one.
I was trying to use a simple to understand word, using a bit of leeway with regards to the law. It seems no-one will let me do this, thus where I have used the term "murder" please instead replace it with "willful, intentional and premeditated killing of another person". Hopefully we can move on with the intent of the phrase rather than to argue about the legal definition of the word.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 08:32:08 PM
To pretend that labelling abortion as murder but simultaneously saying you are not passing any moral judgement doesn't really stack up in normal linguistic usage; as I've said, it also relies on the unarticulated and unexplained assumption that the foetus= human being.
I consider a fetus to be a human being. I don't consider law to equate to morality. I don't consider murder to be immoral or wrong.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 08:32:08 PM
Abortion involves killing a foetus. If you call that murder then you are implicitly condemning it and necessarily saying that a foetus is either a human being or is equivalent to one.
I was trying to use a simple to understand word, using a bit of leeway with regards to the law. It seems no-one will let me do this, thus where I have used the term "murder" please instead replace it with "willful, intentional and premeditated killing of another person". Hopefully we can move on with the intent of the phrase rather than to argue about the legal definition of the word.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 08:32:08 PM
To pretend that labelling abortion as murder but simultaneously saying you are not passing any moral judgement doesn't really stack up in normal linguistic usage; as I've said, it also relies on the unarticulated and unexplained assumption that the foetus= human being.
I consider a fetus to be a human being. I don't consider law to equate to morality. I don't consider murder to be immoral or wrong.
You are entitled to think a foetus is a human being. Just don't expect it to pay taxes. I don't think law equates to morality but I do think the primary sense of murder is a legal one. In the non- legal sense it refers to killing of which the speaker does not approve. So some people say war is murder and those who do so are never pro- war. If you want to use murder in a sense that implies no opprobium or any culpability on the part of the person committing it , I suggest that your usage is pretty well unique to you.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 08:46:49 PM
If you want to use murder in a sense that implies no opprobium or any culpability on the part of the person committing it , I suggest that your usage is pretty well unique to you.
The person (fetus) dies as a direst result of the decision and action of the person having the abortion.
I just don't think the cosmos cares, neither does the law and for the most part neither does society.
I am not interested in making a law to save these peoples lives
Stevil, why do you consider a fetus a human? That makes no sense to me.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 17, 2012, 04:34:46 AM
Stevil, why do you consider a fetus a human? That makes no sense to me.
You don't consider it to be a human being????
I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is an interesting vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR-Qa_LD2m4)
Quote from: Stevil on July 17, 2012, 07:46:40 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 17, 2012, 04:34:46 AM
Stevil, why do you consider a fetus a human? That makes no sense to me.
You don't consider it to be a human being????
I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is an interesting vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR-Qa_LD2m4)
I consider a fetus human too, and an embryo as well for that matter. They're humans in the very earliest stages of life, but I don't see how they can honestly be considered anything else. What other kind of genetic material could you call that?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 17, 2012, 03:48:16 PM
I consider a fetus human too, and an embryo as well for that matter. They're humans in the very earliest stages of life, but I don't see how they can honestly be considered anything else. What other kind of genetic material could you call that?
I consider them pre-human. There is a difference.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 17, 2012, 03:48:16 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 17, 2012, 07:46:40 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 17, 2012, 04:34:46 AM
Stevil, why do you consider a fetus a human? That makes no sense to me.
You don't consider it to be a human being????
I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is an interesting vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR-Qa_LD2m4)
I consider a fetus human too, and an embryo as well for that matter. They're humans in the very earliest stages of life, but I don't see how they can honestly be considered anything else. What other kind of genetic material could you call that?
I agree with this. I'm pro-choice, but I still consider fetuses to be human. Sure, they are a less developed human, but so what? A newborn is less developed than a three year old, but the newborn is still a human. A three year old is less developed than a ten year old, but the three year old is still a human. I don't get how being less developed makes a fetus not a human. The reason that I'm still pro-choice in the face of the idea that fetuses are humans is that I don't think any human should be required to use their bodies and organs to keep another human being alive. Like, if you need a kidney to live and I want to give you one, cool. If not, it's my body and I shouldn't have to, even if that means you die.
Just chiming into this thread quickly (at least, I hope it'll be quick, ha).
When I was younger, I was prolife because I mostly got caught up in the emotional rhetoric behind that stance - ie, everyone 'deserves' to live, if the fetus is human then you're taking away a human's life, and of course the standard '100% of pro-choicers were conveniently never aborted before birth' and the 'if you could ask the baby whether it wanted to be born, do you think it would say no?' etc etc.
Interestingly enough, I became prochoice not when I became an atheist, but when I learned more about my own family history and when I was going to become a mom. Without getting into personal details, I've met and spoken with several women who needed to get an abortion even when it was a very difficult choice to make, and when they didn't want to give up the pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies, cases where the mother-to-be was several months along and found out the baby had a deadly or horribly painful condition and would die anyhow, cases where mothers had their lives put at severe risk if they didn't end a pregnancy - most of these women wanted the babies. Most of them would gladly have gone through the pregnancy had it been healthy and normal. And that's prettymuch when I realized that all women need safe, legal access to abortion services.
When it comes to second trimester and particularly the rare third trimester abortions women get from time to time, it seems that often they wanted the pregnancy. It isn't as though you carry a baby for several months, and then decide suddenly to abort. It seems that in most of these cases, it's a severe health issue that comes into play... and women who have to do the necessary thing and get an abortion are going into abortion clinics, only to be met with angry, yelling prolife protesters, and THAT pisses me the hell off. For that matter, no abortion's easy or a convenient decision, whether you want the baby or not. The woman's going through probably one of the worst days in her life. The last thing she needs is a placard shoved in her face.
Well, so much for this being quick...
I can understand the pro-lifers being compelled to do what they can to try and save a life.
I don't if it ever works or simply makes the mother feel uncomfortable or terrible. It is unnecessary extra stress on an already stressed mother.
If you believe in morality and believe that morality should be imposed via law, then these pro-lifers are acting consistent with that.
But I doubt government will ever make abortion against the law, they can't afford to pay the support required for all the down-syndromeb and other issue people for a life-time. They also don't want people going to unregulated underground clinics.
I struggle with the anti-euthanasia movement. The person in pain has stated that they want the suffering to end. This is much more clear cut than abortion.
Quote from: Stevil on July 17, 2012, 08:28:42 PM
I can understand the pro-lifers being compelled to do what they can to try and save a life.
I don't if it ever works or simply makes the mother feel uncomfortable or terrible. It is unnecessary extra stress on an already stressed mother.
If you believe in morality and believe that morality should be imposed via law, then these pro-lifers are acting consistent with that.
But I doubt government will ever make abortion against the law, they can't afford to pay the support required for all the down-syndromeb and other issue people for a life-time. They also don't want people going to unregulated underground clinics.
I struggle with the anti-euthanasia movement. The person in pain has stated that they want the suffering to end. This is much more clear cut than abortion.
The thing that pisses me off about pro life people (especially the loud , in your face ones) are-- they don't understand what kind of sad, horrible , or simply painful reason the mother has to go through this.
They aren't having the abortion, why don't they shut
their fucking mouths?
It really bothers me... to call and poor woman a murderer or worse, when this can't be easy as is for her.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 17, 2012, 11:18:28 PM
The thing that pisses me off about pro life people (especially the loud , in your face ones) are-- they don't understand what kind of sad, horrible , or simply painful reason the mother has to go through this.
They aren't having the abortion, why don't they shut their fucking mouths?
It really bothers me... to call and poor woman a murderer or worse, when this can't be easy as is for her.
I presume they don't care about hurting the woman's feelings, they may see this as a lesser "evil" than the "murder" that they are desperately trying to prevent.
Quote from: Ali on July 17, 2012, 06:07:40 PM
The reason that I'm still pro-choice in the face of the idea that fetuses are humans is that I don't think any human should be required to use their bodies and organs to keep another human being alive. Like, if you need a kidney to live and I want to give you one, cool. If not, it's my body and I shouldn't have to, even if that means you die.
I'm also pro-choice despite considering the unborn human beings. For me, it's an issue of who has seniority in the difficult situation of two people temporarily sharing one body. They both have rights but I think the mother's must take precedence 1) because she got here first and already has a full life underway, rather than one waiting to happen and 2) I think only the mother is truly in a position to judge what's best in her circumstances, even if "the best" is no more than the less horrible choice.
Personally, I would like to see it made easier to be a mother in difficult circumstances so that women whose reasons to abort are economic or personal, rather than medical, have a real option to carry the child to term if they wish, and I don't care how much it raises my taxes. It's important enough to pay for.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 18, 2012, 02:47:50 AM
Personally, I would like to see it made easier to be a mother in difficult circumstances so that women whose reasons to abort are economic or personal, rather than medical, have a real option to carry the child to term if they wish, and I don't care how much it raises my taxes. It's important enough to pay for.
Yes, I completely agree with this. I support programs that offer support to women and children in the hopes that less women will feel the need to get abortions for financial reasons.
Quote from: Ali on July 18, 2012, 02:14:58 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 18, 2012, 02:47:50 AM
Personally, I would like to see it made easier to be a mother in difficult circumstances so that women whose reasons to abort are economic or personal, rather than medical, have a real option to carry the child to term if they wish, and I don't care how much it raises my taxes. It's important enough to pay for.
Yes, I completely agree with this. I support programs that offer support to women and children in the hopes that less women will feel the need to get abortions for financial reasons.
I must demur. The effect of this, if not the intent, is to write blank cheques for women who are on low incomes to have as many children they want.
Quote from: En_Route on July 18, 2012, 02:30:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 18, 2012, 02:14:58 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 18, 2012, 02:47:50 AM
Personally, I would like to see it made easier to be a mother in difficult circumstances so that women whose reasons to abort are economic or personal, rather than medical, have a real option to carry the child to term if they wish, and I don't care how much it raises my taxes. It's important enough to pay for.
Yes, I completely agree with this. I support programs that offer support to women and children in the hopes that less women will feel the need to get abortions for financial reasons.
I must demur. The effect of this, if not the intent, is to write blank cheques for women who are on low incomes to have as many children they want.
Not necessarily. Full support for first child, 50% for second and none after that.
Quote from: Tank on July 18, 2012, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 18, 2012, 02:30:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 18, 2012, 02:14:58 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 18, 2012, 02:47:50 AM
Personally, I would like to see it made easier to be a mother in difficult circumstances so that women whose reasons to abort are economic or personal, rather than medical, have a real option to carry the child to term if they wish, and I don't care how much it raises my taxes. It's important enough to pay for.
Yes, I completely agree with this. I support programs that offer support to women and children in the hopes that less women will feel the need to get abortions for financial reasons.
I must demur. The effect of this, if not the intent, is to write blank cheques for women who are on low incomes to have as many children they want.
Not necessarily. Full support for first child, 50% for second and none after that.
Programmes of this nature can indeed be calibrated .However, they still imply that taxpayers like ourselves who have to bear the considerable expense of raising and educating our own offspring (and in today's straitened climate the financial haemorrhage doesn't usually stop at 21) will be expected to subsidise other people's children -in many cases purely on the basis that they were careless in their contraceptive habits. Even in your scheme, it means that it will pay a female with limited employment prospects to have a baby and get the state to support her and her child. Not exactly the best cure for the dependency culture. It's unfortunate if someone ends up having to have an abortion, but I really feel no urge to pick up the tab.
Well, let me put it this way. I support Universal Healthcare, which I think is valuable no matter how many children you have. I support providing quality educations in our public schools, which should be available to all children in the US. I support providing food and housing vouchers to anyone who cannot afford to pay for their own food and/or housing, whether they have children or not. In the case of food/housing vouchers, I would like to see some reform, such as those who need them might be enrolled in programs to learn a trade or something like that. But regardless, I do not approve of letting anyone starve to death or die of exposure because they can't afford food or housing, regardless of how many children they have. I also support providing vouchers to help pay for childcare if need be so that parents can work. Child care is insanely expensive; I pay almost a thousand dollars a month for my one child to be in full time daycare, so I can certainly understand if someone finds themself in a position where it seems that they can't afford to work. I support these programs no matter how many kids a person has, but I am certainly hopeful that if we had the right support structure like this in place, less women would feel like they could not afford to not have an abortion.
I ' d agree that once a child has been born it should have guaranteed access to a minimum standard of living, ,healthcare,education etc irrespective of the means of their parents. The effect of all that may incidentally be to deter some women from having abortions. The rationale is that a I prefer to live in a compassionate society that cares for all its members, not to minimise the frequency of abortions as if that is the overarching evil that we must fend off , whatever it takes. What I was baulking at was the idea that additional funds should be channelled to mothers simply to prevent them from having abortions. This really seems to echo the pro- life stance that abortion is something overwhelmingly terrible, and therefore to be averted by all means at our disposal.
I don't think we should, like, pay women to keep pregnancies. But yes, I do believe that we need a compassionate society that provides for all of it's members, and I do hope that the creation of such would make less women feel like they have to get an abortion. I'm not saying that abortion needs to be ended at all costs, but I do think that abortion is a sad situation, and I do hope that no women feels like she has no other choice than to get one. If a woman wants to get one for personal reasons (not ready for a child, or whatever) then I support her right to do that, but I do hate the idea of a woman who would otherwise want to keep her baby but feels that, for financial reasons, it's not an option. I hate the idea of anyone being forced into that position.
Quote from: Ali on July 18, 2012, 05:32:04 PM
I don't think we should, like, pay women to keep pregnancies. But yes, I do believe that we need a compassionate society that provides for all of it's members, and I do hope that the creation of such would make less women feel like they have to get an abortion. I'm not saying that abortion needs to be ended at all costs, but I do think that abortion is a sad situation, and I do hope that no women feels like she has no other choice than to get one. If a woman wants to get one for personal reasons (not ready for a child, or whatever) then I support her right to do that, but I do hate the idea of a woman who would otherwise want to keep her baby but feels that, for financial reasons, it's not an option. I hate the idea of anyone being forced into that position.
I suspect here in the UK, economic factors may not be the most significant determinant in the choice to abort.
Though in my still clergy- ridden part of it, it is remains illegal anyway.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 17, 2012, 03:48:16 PM
I consider a fetus human too, and an embryo as well for that matter. They're humans in the very earliest stages of life, but I don't see how they can honestly be considered anything else. What other kind of genetic material could you call that?
Same here. It's human, and it exists, so it's a human being. You don't have to dehumanize the fetus in order to justify abortion (in most cases). The issue is conflicting rights between two humans - the fetus and the mother. The earlier in the process of pregnancy, the stronger the mother's rights are relative to the fetus. At the end of the pregnancy (after viability), the fetus' rights begin to predominate (IMO). After birth, it's only an issue of the infant's rights, as mother is out of the picture as far as existence is concerned.
double post
Quote from: En_Route on July 18, 2012, 03:16:43 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 18, 2012, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 18, 2012, 02:30:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 18, 2012, 02:14:58 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 18, 2012, 02:47:50 AM
Personally, I would like to see it made easier to be a mother in difficult circumstances so that women whose reasons to abort are economic or personal, rather than medical, have a real option to carry the child to term if they wish, and I don't care how much it raises my taxes. It's important enough to pay for.
Yes, I completely agree with this. I support programs that offer support to women and children in the hopes that less women will feel the need to get abortions for financial reasons.
I must demur. The effect of this, if not the intent, is to write blank cheques for women who are on low incomes to have as many children they want.
Not necessarily. Full support for first child, 50% for second and none after that.
Programmes of this nature can indeed be calibrated .However, they still imply that taxpayers like ourselves who have to bear the considerable expense of raising and educating our own offspring (and in today's straitened climate the financial haemorrhage doesn't usually stop at 21) will be expected to subsidise other people's children -in many cases purely on the basis that they were careless in their contraceptive habits. Even in your scheme, it means that it will pay a female with limited employment prospects to have a baby and get the state to support her and her child. Not exactly the best cure for the dependency culture. It's unfortunate if someone ends up having to have an abortion, but I really feel no urge to pick up the tab.
I agree with you, on reflection. One possibility would be elective adoption at birth.
I would far rather a person whom can't afford to care for children, abort them rather than society paying the bill.
In NZ we have a DPB Domestic Purposes Benefit, and subsequently we have some solo mothers getting pregnant 7 or 8 times, and spending 20 years unemployed and paid by tax payers to keep getting pregnant and thus avoid working.
Where as the responsible people tend to only have as much children as they can afford.
So I ask, Why should the responsible ones pay for the irresponsible one's children?
Let the money pressures keep these people in check.
There is nothing wrong with limiting your offspring based on financial constraints.
Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
I would far rather a person whom can't afford to care for children, abort them rather than society paying the bill.
In NZ we have a DPB Domestic Purposes Benefit, and subsequently we have some solo mothers getting pregnant 7 or 8 times, and spending 20 years unemployed and paid by tax payers to keep getting pregnant and thus avoid working.
Where as the responsible people tend to only have as much children as they can afford.
So I ask, Why should the responsible ones pay for the irresponsible one's children?
Let the money pressures keep these people in check.
There is nothing wrong with limiting your offspring based on financial constraints.
What would you prefer? The way I see it, there is no such thing as a perfect solution. We can
a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.
b) Sterilize the poor after they've had their quota of children. (I believe Siz likes this option.)
c) Accept that some people will take advantage of the situation, and that's still better than letting people starve or forcing them to abort wanted children.
a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.
I like this one.
Also
Offer free schools, and thus provide equal opportunity for the poor to get educated and get a high paying job.
Offer free medical care for young children, and subsidised medical care for all.
Ed: But I wouldn't term it as "fall through the cracks" instead I would say "let them be accountable for their own actions"
If we as society take away accountability from the people, then people will never learn to be responsible.
Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 08:40:11 PM
a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.
I like this one.
Also
Offer free schools, and thus provide equal opportunity for the poor to get educated and get a high paying job.
Offer free medical care for young children, and subsidised medical care for all.
Ed: But I wouldn't term it as "fall through the cracks" instead I would say "let them be accountable for their own actions"
If we as society take away accountability from the people, then people will never learn to be responsible.
I guess my question here is, should the children born to low-income families be the ones who have to be accountable for the actions of their parents?
We can say 'well, these parents just need to figure out a way to feed and clothe and pay for the schooling of their kids', but in reality, a lot of parents aren't able to do that, so children go to school without breakfast/dinner, wear clothing that isn't warm enough in the winter, and end up never going to college or university because their parents can't afford it.
I do really like your idea of free schools (or at least discount colleges/public schools), and I'd add the idea of more scholarships/bursaries.
I also like your idea of free medical care for young kids, and subsidized care for everyone else.
I'd also add that if I could find a way to (not that I personally know how), I'd find a way to make daycare/childcare a lot more affordable, make sure every school had a breakfast program and reasonably priced healthy food for lunches, and that schools had before/afterschool programs kids could go to that offered activities or some homework help, so that parents with school aged kids could have more flexibility in being able to work while knowing their kids were safe.
Quote from: Amicale on July 18, 2012, 09:59:31 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 08:40:11 PM
a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.
I like this one.
Also
Offer free schools, and thus provide equal opportunity for the poor to get educated and get a high paying job.
Offer free medical care for young children, and subsidised medical care for all.
Ed: But I wouldn't term it as "fall through the cracks" instead I would say "let them be accountable for their own actions"
If we as society take away accountability from the people, then people will never learn to be responsible.
I guess my question here is, should the children born to low-income families be the ones who have to be accountable for the actions of their parents?
We can say 'well, these parents just need to figure out a way to feed and clothe and pay for the schooling of their kids', but in reality, a lot of parents aren't able to do that, so children go to school without breakfast/dinner, wear clothing that isn't warm enough in the winter, and end up never going to college or university because their parents can't afford it.
I do really like your idea of free schools (or at least discount colleges/public schools), and I'd add the idea of more scholarships/bursaries.
I also like your idea of free medical care for young kids, and subsidized care for everyone else.
I'd also add that if I could find a way to (not that I personally know how), I'd find a way to make daycare/childcare a lot more affordable, make sure every school had a breakfast program and reasonably priced healthy food for lunches, and that schools had before/afterschool programs kids could go to that offered activities or some homework help, so that parents with school aged kids could have more flexibility in being able to work while knowing their kids were safe.
Agree.
As far as schools go, my husband worked in some pretty "at risk" populations when he was doing his student teaching (as do most of the student teachers in our area, as it is a way to give those schools free "teachers.") and they (the schools in these areas) were required to provide both breakfast and lunch for the kids every day because at least then they could be sure that the kids were eating at least twice a day. :'( It breaks my heart to thinnk of those kids going home and not being able to take eating dinner for granted.
Quote from: Ali on July 18, 2012, 08:31:51 PM
What would you prefer? The way I see it, there is no such thing as a perfect solution. We can
a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.
b) Sterilize the poor after they've had their quota of children. (I believe Siz likes this option.)
c) Accept that some people will take advantage of the situation, and that's still better than letting people starve or forcing them to abort wanted children.
Option b has been tried, many times. It never ends well. I go for option c, largely because of the fallout from option a.
I understand how galling it is to think that your money is going to support spongers -- and not even spongers you're related to! -- I'm annoyed by that myself, but not enough to over-look the fact that it's the kids who'll suffer most. The children are our future, as they say, and I don't want them too badly damaged when I'm old and helpless and it's time for them to take care of me.
But seriously, I think that, like the taxes it takes out of our wallets, accepting the inevitability of spongers and looking after them is part of the price of civilization.
Quote from: Amicale on July 18, 2012, 09:59:31 PM
I guess my question here is, should the children born to low-income families be the ones who have to be accountable for the actions of their parents?
Yes, absolutely, parents ought to be held accountable for their children.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that children are dependant on their parents and those with responsible, financially well positioned parents are likely to have an "easier" life.
As a society if we don't take care of the poor then we will eventually have a revolt on our hands. With regards to the basic necessities of life (food, warmth, shelter), we need to assist. I don't feel this assistance should be unconditional though. With regards to accepting the assistance the beneficiary needs to make a commitment towards positioning themselves towards independence and away from being a dependant of the state. Putting in effort towards up skilling, towards better financial management, saving for future, ensuring children attend school etc. Government in turn needs to provide support towards the training, counselling, mentoring of these people.
If people unreasonably refuse to input their part of the bargain, or are irresponsible and skip many commitments then benefits should be withheld (This will certainly impact the children). If the children are not provided reasonable care by their parents then the government has the duty to relocate those children into an environment where reasonable care will be provided.
It is possible that instead of providing breakfast and lunch money to the parents, these funds should go to the school and breakfast and lunch to be provided by the school.
How would one go about sterilizing the poor? Just curious ;)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 19, 2012, 12:27:56 AM
How would one go about sterilizing the poor? Just curious ;)
Proper pills mixed with the soup at soup kitchens? :D
Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 11:38:11 PM
\It is possible that instead of providing breakfast and lunch money to the parents, these funds should go to the school and breakfast and lunch to be provided by the school.
That is how it works, the state provides funding to the schools so that they can every child breakfast and lunch.
Quote from: Ali on July 19, 2012, 02:48:03 AM
Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 11:38:11 PM
\It is possible that instead of providing breakfast and lunch money to the parents, these funds should go to the school and breakfast and lunch to be provided by the school.
That is how it works, the state provides funding to the schools so that they can every child breakfast and lunch.
I'm all for government funded programs for breakfast plans at school, but parents who cannot provide financially really shouldn't even have children. I mean, it's common sense. I know it's not so black and white for a lot of people, but for most it is...
I didn't have the stamina to read all the previous posts on this topic, being new here, so I hope I'm not being redundant with my thoughts:
Giving a child up for adoption does not guarantee they are going to better parents. You might think that since adoption is costly that only parents who had the means (and having the means are therefore fully equipped) to raise a child in a loving and sufficient environment would guarantee just that, but it doesn't. And it's also true that poverty doesn't automatically doom children to become burdens upon society. I think we need more parenting education.
Where I stand on abortion: I feel no one should have the right to choose for a woman - it's her body, her business.
Curious as to what others think about this tactic by pro-life organizations: Tthere are some uber-conservatives who are putting forth laws in several states in the U.S. (including Oklahoma and New Hampshire), forcing doctors to give out "literature" to any woman seeking an abortion. Included in this "literature" are some cleverly manipulated statistics that make it appear that having an abortion raises one's risk of breast cancer, which, of course, is NOT TRUE. The truth is that women who have carried a baby to term have a lower incidence of breast cancer -- carrying a baby to term is preventative. That doesn't mean that not getting pregnant, or that terminating a pregnancy causes breast cancer.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 19, 2012, 02:55:22 AM
I'm all for government funded programs for breakfast plans at school, but parents who cannot provide financially really shouldn't even have children. I mean, it's common sense. I know it's not so black and white for a lot of people, but for most it is...
And the problem when govt gives money directly to the parents, some of them would rather go to the pub or casino than buy their kids food for lunch.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 19, 2012, 02:55:22 AMI'm all for government funded programs for breakfast plans at school, but parents who cannot provide financially really shouldn't even have children. I mean, it's common sense. I know it's not so black and white for a lot of people, but for most it is...
Ideally, this would be the case, but with conservative religious people sabotaging even the most basic sex education in public schools (and outright banning it at many private schools), we are likely to continue seeing increased instances of unwanted pregnancies in younger people who lack the maturity and financial stability to adequately provide for children. A solution to the issue of government funding for low-income parents would be reinvesting in comprehensive sex education and free or at least subsidized birth control. Sex education is also a key measure to reducing the amount of abortions.
It's amazing to see religious nutbags simultaneously decry abortion and sabotage the measures that could reduce the number abortions. It's almost as if they don't actually care about abortion, but rather are more interested in shaming and punishing women they see as promiscuous. Hint hint.
Quote from: Will on July 19, 2012, 03:50:02 AM
A solution to the issue of government funding for low-income parents would be reinvesting in comprehensive sex education and free or at least subsidized birth control. Sex education is also a key measure to reducing the amount of abortions.
Definitely for this as well.
QuoteIt's amazing to see religious nutbags simultaneously decry abortion and sabotage the measures that could reduce the number abortions. It's almost as if they don't actually care about abortion, but rather are more interested in shaming and punishing women they see as promiscuous. Hint hint.
That's certainly my perception of it. They may well care about the unborn too but they're far more concerned with punishing women for having sex.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 19, 2012, 04:21:35 AM
Quote from: Will on July 19, 2012, 03:50:02 AM
A solution to the issue of government funding for low-income parents would be reinvesting in comprehensive sex education and free or at least subsidized birth control. Sex education is also a key measure to reducing the amount of abortions.
Definitely for this as well.
QuoteIt's amazing to see religious nutbags simultaneously decry abortion and sabotage the measures that could reduce the number abortions. It's almost as if they don't actually care about abortion, but rather are more interested in shaming and punishing women they see as promiscuous. Hint hint.
That's certainly my perception of it. They may well care about the unborn too but they're far more concerned with punishing women for having sex.
Great post, Will.
How dare people enjoy their sex!! >:(
Quote from: Will on July 19, 2012, 03:50:02 AM
{snip}
It's amazing to see religious nutbags simultaneously decry abortion and sabotage the measures that could reduce the number abortions. It's almost as if they don't actually care about abortion, but rather are more interested in shaming and punishing women they see as promiscuous. Hint hint.
The ignorant, poor and vulnerable have always been the victims of unscrupulous manipulators and Institutionalised Superstitions provide unscrupulous manipulators with a legitimate cover, infrastructure and organisation. Thus one has the making of a 'Perfect Storm' where the ignorant, poor and vulnerable are manipulated to create more ignorant, poor and vulnerable.